Slashdot Mirror
What They Don't Tell You About Climate Change (economist.com)
Countries are scrambling to limit the rise in the earth's temperature to just two degrees by the end of this century. But Slashdot reader dryriver shares an article titled "What They Don't Tell You About Climate Change."
No, it is not that Climate Change is a hoax or that the climate science gets it all wrong and Climate Change isn't happening. According to the Economist, it is rather that "Fully 101 of the 116 models the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses to chart what lies ahead assume that carbon will be taken out of the air in order for the world to have a good chance of meeting the 2C target."
In other words, reducing carbon emissions around the world, creating clean energy from wind farms, driving electrical cars and so forth is not going to suffice to meet agreed upon climate targets at all. Negative emissions are needed. The world is going to overshoot the "maximum 2 degrees of warming" target completely unless someone figures out how to suck as much as 810 Billion Tonnes of carbon out of Earth's atmosphere by 2100 using some kind of industrial scale process that currently does not exist.
That breaks down to 1,785,742,000,000,000 pounds of CO2, "as much as the world's economy produces in 20 years," according to the Economist.
"Putting in place carbon-removal schemes of this magnitude would be an epic endeavour even if tried-and-tested techniques existed. They do not."
In other words, reducing carbon emissions around the world, creating clean energy from wind farms, driving electrical cars and so forth is not going to suffice to meet agreed upon climate targets at all. Negative emissions are needed. The world is going to overshoot the "maximum 2 degrees of warming" target completely unless someone figures out how to suck as much as 810 Billion Tonnes of carbon out of Earth's atmosphere by 2100 using some kind of industrial scale process that currently does not exist.
That breaks down to 1,785,742,000,000,000 pounds of CO2, "as much as the world's economy produces in 20 years," according to the Economist.
"Putting in place carbon-removal schemes of this magnitude would be an epic endeavour even if tried-and-tested techniques existed. They do not."
Designed to grow quickly and fix carbon quickly ... but need something not found in nature to grow -- thus preventing them from becoming an invasive species.
Seems lie a simple idea.
Clean coal is magical
Humans have had the answer for 2500 years and counting.
... we're screwed.
Because I have the faith that technology will get better and we will all move to Mars. Computers got better, therefore everything gets better at the same rate.
Others will want to move to the clouds of Venus.
All perfectly reasonable and doable.
It's just that no one listens. Reduce the population by billions. Take the CO2 output down to 19th century levels. The problem is of course it's not possible in that many decades to cut the population by 75% without resorting to forced birth control and mass murder - which won't happen because those in charge will be sacked with extreme prejudice. The only thing you can do is convert to less CO2 output in energy production and adapt to whatever changes occur.
You already have the tools and technology to convert to more green energy sources. Even nuclear is better than fossil fuels. But it's going to cost a lot and it will be painful. It's either that, or future generations will have to accept what is going to happen. Take your pick and damn the torpedos.
In other words, "How Long Can You Tread Water?"
That's how you know the Club of Rome and their progenitors are not interested in solving anthropogenic global warming, simply in politically exploiting the scenario to destroy capitalism.
I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times: You diseased freaks will be extinct in less than 300 years.
Theres these things that the citty folk have never seen. I hear they are quite common and actually contain most of the carbon on the planet... Plants I think they are called.... They are very good at scrubbing CO2 down into the parts per million range (for you non-science majors and climate "scientists" that is very damn little left in the atmosphere.
Idiots.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
duh
I have a possible solution. We could fight global warming with nuclear winter!
The earth is pretty good at moving with the ebb and flow of things, Us not so much. It seems like a correction may present itself, I'm glad I'm only going to see it start of it. Should be a wonderful show!
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions isn't going to stop global warming, and if it takes global scale carbon dioxide removal technology to stop it, then we might as well continue burning carbon fuels: Either we find a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in mass quantities, then there's no harm in burning carbon fuels, or we don't find it, then we're fucked anyway. Might as well enjoy the time we have.
Carbon Dioxide is a gas. The terms are NOT interchangeable.
You keep yelling consequences, but for every potential consequence there is some action we can take. Between Boson and quark fusion there will be quite a bit of energy to pump heat where we want it. Rising water? Pumps! What's so hard?
guess what, trees are made out of carbon so when they die all the carbon they absorbed gets released back in to the environment, unless you cut them all down before they die and make lumber or paper or some other product out of them
Drat! Trees are completely unsuitable for removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Damn you "some guy on the internet", for pointing out the obvious flaw in the plan.
Now we have to come up with some other solution.
When Carter was president of the US (late 70's), he was trying to get Climate Change on the national radar, but then Regan got elected and he stopped any action that could have had a chance of making a significant impact.
I remember as a kid him saying something like "We need to start now, otherwise we will not have enough time". Well I guess all young people can do now is try and live on high ground and I would say various coastal cities need to re-evaluate where to build new high-rises.
Of course now it seems coastal real-estate is hotter then I have ever seen it. So, seems the future looks gloomy.
That all that co2 and more was originally in the atmosphere. It was taken out and stored by organic life forms (where we pretty much gat oil, natural gas from). So no "massive industrial" process is needed. Just some good old fashioned organic life forms like what existed 3.2 billion years ago. With bioengineering progression, surely we can reproduce some simple co2 hungry prokaryotes.
is that a lot of people and their animal are going to die. Most of the world already lives at the edge of heat/humidity limit. A few degrees more and we are dead. To put simpler, the summer heat waves are going to be hotter and people and their animals are going to die.
One is now a paleoclimatologist specializing in tree rings, the other a historical hydrologist. Between one thing and another, I still get together with them a couple times a year. When climate change/global warming comes up in the course of conversation, they have a lot to say, but one thing comes through quite clearly even when they don't say it outright. (And they have both said it outright to me at different times.) They're scared. And despite both being married, neither has any children. Make of my anecdote what you will.
Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
That's how you know the Club of Rome and their progenitors are not interested in solving anthropogenic global warming,
Your referent is missing. What is how you know the Club of Rome and their progenitors are not interested in solving anthropogenic global warming?
Look into hydrology. Water goes somewhere, even when you "pump" it away from a city. When you pump fresh water into the ocean you change the salinity, and lots of things start to die quickly. Pump it into a river and it expands, too much then that creates a marsh or delta. Do that enough and you kill everything that lived on the land before. Then you are really fucked when something moves back in with no predators.
Enjoy the surplus of atmospheric CO2 while it lasts. Mass-manufacture of CNTs/CNT derivatives will introduce a massive carbon sink, and it is likely that the materials thus manufactured will NEVER decay.
We are still a few years out from that eventuality, but once it starts . . . hoo boy.
What about the hundreds of millions who live in coastal cities? Remember that many of the worlds major cities are coastal.
The problem is that global warming will render large populated portions of the globe inhospitable to human life, and there will not be a comparable "expansion" as some imagine in fantasy. Those people don't just die, the become environmental refugees as everything in the environment gets disrupted. Diseases spread by new vectors, and spread to new areas. Think a lot more.
Oh please... I'm not a denailist. But let's be serious, a lot of the people promoting Global Warming also tell you (if you listen/read long enough into the rhetoric they're spewing) that their plans can't work, were never going to work, and that it's probably hopeless. You really think those dunces were ever trying to help when they're literal nihilists? No. They were trying to make a buck.
I'm holding in all my farts.
With every day that passes and every pessimistic article like this that I read, doomsday peppers look and sound progressively less crazy.
You're pumping the wrong direction. You want to pump water out of the ocean and into a cistern of some sort, someplace convenient.
The climate has been changing from the beginning of the world. Remember back to school days. This thing called ICE AGE and all the other things that happen.
What they *really* don't tell you is that global warming is driven by population more than anything else..
Unless population management becomes a recognized and achievable goal, humanity is destined for increasing cataclysms and catastrophes.
Of course, this is directly opposed by the fantasy economics of continuing economic growth, but thermodynamics will always win.
2 degrees increase isn't the max. It's where things hit the fan. At 5 degrees there's a hell of a lot more fans.
All of the identified changes are what will make parts of the globe inhospitable. Find a way to let me have my warm winter and figure out a way to let them have their coasts. I've already pointed out pumping as a mechanism for making the necessary adjustments in another thread. As Portal points out we do what we must because we can.
Dr. Roy Spencer, funded solely by Government grants (not "Big Oil"), lays out the actual data and shows that 95% of all climate models agree that actual measured data is wrong. The models, basically, do not model actually all that well. Puts a bit of a damper on the whole "models assume we have negative carbon output!" kind of thing, doesn't it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
According to this link and taking some round numbers, an Albizzia lebbek can sequester 70 lbs of CO2 per year.
Assuming a 40-year project lifetime, we would then need 637,765,000,000 trees to pull the mentioned amount out of the atmosphere.
For comparison, the Amazon rainforest has an estimated 390 billion trees.
Dividing these two numbers indicates that the world would have to plant and grow [the equivalent of] 1.6 Amazon Rainforests for a 40 year period.
I'm not saying that this is a bad solution, only that it is an incomplete solution. We should probably plant trees in areas where it makes sense and is easy to do, but we'll still need an epic-level solution to the problem.
Either way, doesn't matter to me. I rent, and am some 700 feet above sea level. Best case? I win the lottery, buy this apartment complex, and soon own beachfront property. Worst case? Buncha folks I never met drown while I have a barbie on the grill.
The old alarmist predictions of climate catastrophe have proven false again and again and again, so why do people believe the new ones?
You would expect that a group that consistently makes inaccurate predictions would lose credibility because of that and the public would stop believing what they say. Or, well, maybe not.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Designed to grow quickly and fix carbon quickly ... but need something not found in nature to grow -- thus preventing them from becoming an invasive species.
Another question about your solution, which is not at all a bad solution, is the availability of useable Nitrates.
Trees can pull Carbon out of the atmosphere, but get Nitrogen from the soil. The Nitrogen has to be in bio-available form, and there are limited places to get it on Earth (ie - fertilizer). So much so that about 5% of all the world's energy production goes into making Ammonia, mostly for nitrate fertilizers.
I'm not sure we even *could* plant that many trees and expect them to grow - the amount of Nitrogen needed is enormous, and we can't simply add fertlilzer because it costs us energy to make it. (See: Haber Process.)
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad solution, only that it is incomplete. It should be used in conjunction with as many other scaled-up solutions as we can come up with.
you are a god damn retard
Those people don't just die, the(y) become environmental refugees
Not really. I keep hearing about thousands dying whenever the Ganges floods. Why don't those people just migrate a hundred miles inland? Because the people already living inland will kill them. They just have to stay put and drown.
,,, Made of concrete or steel or something. You could even have saltwater canals.
For fuck's sake, get help, you miserable piece of insane trash.
I have some ideas on how to create a replicator like in Star Trek. I call it a Transreplicator, Imagine being able to take all the carbon atoms in the atmosphere ionize them then quickly cool the particles with the Magnetic Resonance Frequency of what ever atom you wish. Basically turning carbon atoms into what ever atoms you wish.
In the meantime, islamic countries fear energy, food and water shortage, but they censor reports released to the public about that.
There's an easier solution to rising water -- move further inland. Its not like the 6 or 10 or whatever it is these days foot rise will happen over night.
The bigger issue is things like food shortage -- all those plants and animals we like to eat have a good chance of not being able to survive in a significantly changed climate. It likely won't kill humans off (we'll find the species that can survive and farm the hell out of them..) but it will significantly reduce our quality of life when the only things left on the menu are horse meat and GMO algae blooms. And only enough of that to feed a billion people, leaving the other (by that time) 8 or 9 billion to slowly starve to death.
I'm guessing by your tone that you were mostly joking but still.. there are serious issues to consider and we're absolutely looking at a mass extinction event if we don't find a way to undo the damage, and just hoping that we're not among the species to disappear.
All the screeching about the terrifying problem of capturing carbon already in the atmosphere arose YEARS ago.
Freeman Dyson took it apart and addressed it quite easily and well.
If you CHOOSE to address it by other means than global government taking control and doing massive wealth redistribution etc to try to manipulate emissions, then there are plenty of easy, simple, and cheap alternative solutions many of which are actually beneficial in other ways. These include things like increased production of certain types of food crops which result over time in carbon capture in newly created topsoil and more productive farmlands, which in-turn result in more plentiful food and less global stavation.
He also pointed out that if one wants to look to far-flung exotic future technologies, on par with what the atmosphere&emissions manipulating fans dream of, it's quite likely that we will soon (within decades) be capable of engineering plants that are far better at carbon capture - resulting in a very cheap, self-replicating and self-maintaining system to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere. Not much more exotic than many other ideas people toss about, and with a much less totalitarian footprint.
That is a bunch of discredited bullshit, try reading a journal with actual informed peer review.
...for preventing climate change being a burden to us or country, and for making us beneficial to the public
It seems very simple to me. In order to reduce teh amount of CO2 being pushed into the atmosphere we simply need to go back to the CO2 levels of the early 20th century, along with the population levels.
Just need 6 or so billion people to volunteer.
(with all apologies to Johnathan Swift)
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Ah yes, the typical geek viewpoint: For every human problem, there is a technological solution. Technology will solve everything.
Well, you're partly right. There IS one technology that could solve all of humanity's problems: Genetic engeneering. Because apart from completely transforming the human species at the genetic level, nothing will change the fact that we are a natural abheration, an inherently self-destructing species, an evolutionary dead-end.
Climate change will have little to no effect on the planet as a whole. The ecosystem will transform, life will adapt. But for humans, particularly human civilization, that's a totally different ball game. Cities will flood, agriculture will collapse. industry will soon follow, and the world will be plunged into complete chaos and bloodshed.
It's like a cancerous tumor creating its own chimotherapy. We should stop trying to interfere.
If you extrapolate current emission scenarios to 2100 with no artificial carbon scrubbing, you end up with below 1000 ppm CO2. Basic science tells us that even such an unrealistic scenario gives us perhaps 3C warming over current conditions. In the past, when there have been such carbon concentrations, mammalian life was flourishing and primates became established. But that scenario is unrealistic anyway because economies are already motivated to reduce emissions all by themselves: fossil fuels are expensive, and they are getting more expensive the more we use them up. That drives both energy efficiency and renewable energies. In reality, we're probably going to end up with maybe 600 ppm CO2, leaving us with less than 2C temperature increase.
The problem with climate science isn't the science, it's the fear mongering, corruption, and politics people misuse the science for. Yes, carbon emission growth and temperature increases are real, but Paris is not the answer. In fact, government attempts to intervene are likely going to make things worse rather than better.
You mean this Roy Spencer
https://skepticalscience.com/R...
right ?
What is it with the slashdot crowd and the "lone wolf" saviour thing ? Is it just the usual right wing astro turfing, or do they really think that it's normal for lots and lots of scientists to be wrong AND lie about it, but that one person is the real purveyor of truth.
Roy Spencer is right but 95% of the climate scientists on the planet are wrong ? really?
We're dumping GIGA tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, a heat trapping gas, and it's doing NOTHING ?
oh wait, I forgot it's all natural variability. oh that's awesome, i'm glad you thought of that. before Roy Spencer came along nobody thought to check to see if maybe this warming is due to natural variability. wow- what a brilliant insight !
Well, all of those lying climate scientists on their big fat research paychecks showed that it isn't natural variability, but THEY'RE ALL WRONG. and they're liars. and Al Gore is fat.
Absolute statements are never true
Getting all the countries on earth to actually get their people to participate in this just seems like a complete impossibility.. so we're completely fucked, and so are most of the species on the planet. Good to know.
Itâ(TM)s simple. Just eat something else. Itâ(TM)s not that hard.
I'll be dead. I have no children and will never have any. Right wingers rule the world. Let them die. I won't care because ... well .... dead.
There is a huge difference between what they know and what they believe. CO2 forcing occurs as part of a complex feedback system. The truth is they don't f*cking know what a significant increase in [CO2] will do. The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.2E18 kg but the mass of the oceans is about 1,400E18 kg. And yet they continue to mostly ignore the biggest heat sink on the Earth's surface. Why? because they really don't know what the oceans are going to do as [CO2] increases. As is true with ANY feedback system, small perturbations can be amplified into huge responses. But people continue to confuse the science and the politics. The Kyoto treaty was about as reasonable (imho) as suggesting a nuclear exchange to solve the problem. Either one would work, but neither would be without enormous economic (and human) consequences, but in reality, a nuclear exchange is more likely to happen than the Paris accord is.
"Countries are scrambling to limit the rise in the earth's temperature to just two degrees by the end of this century."
Really? Which countries are doing this? Germany? Shutting down clean nuclear plants and burning dirty coal in its place? Seriously - I don't see anybody doing too much of anything about it.
Do you have ESP?
And where are you going to get all the necessary phosphorous for the new trees to grow?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I do not find too many scientists with any credentials who actually say reducing carbon is going to do anything significant to change a impending climate change. Earth's powers that have created climate extremes have occurred long before any effects of man or animals on the Earth. I think some have rather swollen heads to think we can truly affect Earth significantly one way or another. It's like a hurricane or tornado, better off dealing with its affects then trying to stop it.
Phosphorous is a bigger issue than Nitrogen. We are already to soon have an agricultural shortage of Phosphorous.
You guys would give up the anti-gun politics, and the anti-religious politics, and the racial identity politics, and the gender politics, and all the government union featherbedding, and the single-payer healthcare, and all the rest of the issues that have convinced about 50% of voters that you hate them and you're simply power hungry and greedy for money other people earned.
Show voters that your side will sacrifice things to solve climate change. Because most people just see yet another power and money grab, in a long series of power and money grabs.
... in something that will preserve it well and ensure that your children and grand-children can read these words long after you are dead. They will curse your name!
We were told this as children in the 70s, that in the future, if things didn't change between now and then, we'd pass the point of no return.
In the 80s, folks were distracted by the hole in the ozone layer.
In the 90s, folks in the US were distracted by war, a dying economy, and the prospect of globalization diminishing the standard of living.
By the 2000s, it was too late.
There's a reason I don't have kids. My condolences to future humanity, hopefully the end will be kinder than one might imagine.
even if tried-and-tested techniques existed. They do not.
Solved that part for ya. Here you go: tried-and-tested techniques
calcium carbonate (CaCO3).
Help! help!, the termites are eating my DRAM!!!
When empirical data and theoretical models don't match - which do you trust? Dr. Spencer does what any good scientist or engineer should do - go with the actual empirical data.
This says NOTHING about whether or not climate change is happening or whether or not man is causing it; what it IS saying is that the models used to predict what could happen are turning out to be quite invalid, as they do not match the actual data. When the model fails to predict or match actual measurements - it's the model that needs to be corrected, yes?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Just because it is hard, or some would even say impossible to avoid the 2 C temperature increase, doesn't mean we should not try to do our best.
If it ends up the temperature raises by "only" 4 C instead of say, 7 C if we give up all efforts, it's still a big win.
How about we plant more trees? You know, that whole breathes-CO2-exhales-O2 symbiotic relationship we have with plant life.
No one knows what ppm of co2 yields a specific temperature rise. without this understanding the relationship, removing co2 from the air can cause lots of consequences, like a temperature collapse
Solid carbon block has a density of about 3500 Kg/m^3, so this 810 Billion ton(ne)s would represent 232 Billion cubic meters. A patch of land 30 km square would need to be piled 258 meters high, which will keep the top above sea level even after the ice all melts.
Alternately, every person on earth can have a 30 m^3 carbon water filter
So kill them. Seems simple enough.
We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions as fast as physically possible. This is far faster than what is convenient or affordable.
The current scientific thinking is there is a remaining carbon budget, anything we do to slow the amount of greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere will help. For individual actions one scientist chronicled how he faced needing to change. Both individual actions that he took, and the way he tried to deal with the emotional challenge.
Being the Change
But what we need to do is this The Climate Mobilization where every possible thing in society is being re-engineered to avoid greenhouse gas emissions.
Models are wrong by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't be models. Modelling an analogue systems with infinite levels of complexity will always involve a degree of error.
This notion that we can simply ignore scientific models and not act on them just because they have some degree of error in them is idiotic. If throughout history we based all our decisions on such logic we would still be in the stone age, which is what climate change deniers will return us to if we choose to listen to their moronic arguments.
I do my part. I take about 1,540 tons of CO2 out of the air a year, sequestering it in the soils, trees and meat. Everyone can do their part in some way. If everyone does that we'll solve 0.6% of the problem...
Start of a good joke.
Sure, models are simplifications - but in this case the models are off by more than twice their error bars. And they continue to diverge even further. At what point do we choose to ignore what the "models say for the future" and go all-in on new models? Or do we keep basing decisions on the outputs of provably inaccurate models? If you were doing a circuit based upon V=I^3/R^5, and your data as you increased I for a given R was way off from what your model, at what point would you stop, examine the data and basic theories, and try to build another model?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Claiming some kind of taxation or subsidy to solve this problem will not work. So long as people can vote the people will vote away a tax they view as unfair, excessive, or otherwise not in their interest. Same goes for subsidies, although far worse. We can subsidize house insulation upgrades, electric cars, energy efficient bulbs, solar panels, or whatever else we tried. All this does is make the poor poorer (they are paying the taxes to support this subsidy in some fashion, though not always directly) and the rich richer (to collect the subsidy one has to have money to spend on the subsidized item).
The only way to fix this is to make CO2 expensive naturally. Raising the cost artificially, with taxes, can go as quickly as it came. How do we raise the cost of CO2 naturally? Well, for one it is going to rise as we keep using it up. The price goes down naturally with increased technology and economy of scale. Same applies for low CO2 energy, we need to fix this with technology and economy of scale.
We already have an artificially high cost of a low CO2 energy source, nuclear power. Make the process of getting a license to build a clear and straightforward process would help a lot. There's plenty of people that have applied with what I assume are reasonable applications, just issue the damned license already. We've been building very safe nuclear power plants in the USA for a long time, I think we have it figured out. Allow economy of scale to take place. If one reactor is approved then every one after it should only need approval for updates and site specific differences.
Wind and solar have already enjoyed economy of scale cost savings, I have difficulty believing we can improve much here. This will need technology improvements and after 50 years of trying real hard on this there's not likely to be much left to gain.
Once we stop digging deeper with nuclear we can learn to fill this hole by carbon sequestration. This was mentioned in the article but claimed it can only be done at great expense. A professor in Idaho (I forget his name) claims we might be able to mine a common rock called basalt and use that as fertilizer. It's rich in lime which farmers already spread on their fields to control acidity from spreading manure and such. This is an ongoing process so they have to keep applying more. Right now they mine limestone for this, which is "cooked" into the lime they need and this process produces a lot of CO2.
Basalt is a much harder rock than limestone, and it produces only half the lime content per mass. To make this a viable alternative to limestone we need energy that is too valuable to use to turn limestone into lime. This has an inherent contradiction since it's cheap energy that makes cooking limestone worthwhile. The solution, as I understand it, is to make energy cheap enough that it's easier to simply mine and move the readily usable (but more massive) basalt than mine, cook, and move the "lighter and softer" limestone.
This professor believes the only way to do this is with an energy source as cheap, reliable, and plentiful as nuclear power. Solar and wind will not do since the mines for basalt will have to run full speed, day and night, in all weather, to compete with limestone.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
that, for years, the line of thinking is that " Humans have impacted the environment so much, that the poles are starting to melt because of it "
Ice Melts -> Climate Changes -> Bad
It's easy to see how as the ice continues to vanish from Antartica, it can modify the global currents that determine what climate looks like in various parts of the world. Bring warmer water into an area that previously didn't have it and -shazam- welcome to climate change. Change the route a cold water current takes and, once again, welcome to climate change. Over time, jungles can become deserts, tundra becomes jungle, and great places to live today might not be so grand a few hundred years later.
The amusing part is the recent revelation that we, as humans, might not actually be totally at fault for the ice melt problem down at the bottom of the world. Rather, a previously unknown volcano is melting it from below.
Which, only goes to show you, that even with a full stop ( or even a reverse ) on emissions from the human world, it may not stop the inevitable. ( Unless you know how to stop a volcano anyway )
We humans like to think we know it all but, in reality, the how and why Nature does things still baffles the sh*t out of us sometimes.
People have been making these claims for 40 years. Not one has come true. Science has proven you a liar. Think a lot more.
Except it doesn't work that way. While the climate as a whole warms up, what occurs locally can be very different - some areas could see colder winters as the weather patterns we are used to change thanks to changes like warming oceans, loss of ice at the poles, etc.
Yawn... heard it before. We're already supposed to be simultaneously drowning, burning, starving, and a few other bad things.
The sky is still exactly where it was the last time your globalist elite overlords said something scary. It is not falling.
The "climate change" concern in the 60s and 70s was global cooling, not global warming. The only bit you got correct is that Carter got involved; he signed the National Climate Program Act to deal with "the global cooling crisis."
I worry for Slashdot when I see such revisionism as yours upmodded to +5.
This is the magnified minority effect - Roy Spencer and his co-worker John Christy are the most frequently-quoted of the 3% of climate scientists that minimize or reject human-caused global warming (in their case, minimize). As if simply repeating their opinions ad nauseum makes them correct.
Yes, I've seen that post by Roy Spencer before. His graph relies largely on choosing a very short baseline (1979-1983) to exaggerate the difference between models and measurements (because the difference between models and observations was unusually large in 1979-1983). In contrast, it is normal to use a 30-year period for baselining to eliminate short-term artifacts.
Spencer's graph also shows that measurements of the troposphere are not as high as models predicted; climate scientists generally agree about this but have explored many possible reasons (technical discussion here), whereas Spencer/Christy emphasize just that one interpretation of the data that minimizes global warming. A paper published soon afterward confirmed the hot spot, but I've seen how people who don't want to believe it can dismiss that paper based on its title alone (the title contains the word "homogenised", which deniers take as an indication of fraud.)
It's interesting that Lynnwood highlights that Spencer is 'funded solely by Government grants (not "Big Oil")' - at the same time as other 'skeptics' argue that climate scientists cannot be trusted because you supposedly "have to" believe in man-made global warming in order to get government funding. One thing I've learned well from talking to skeptics is that they are very good at burning the climate science candle at both ends. Another example: mainstream models are claimed to be useless because they are not perfectly accurate, but apparently if a model is produced by Spencer/Christy it can be trusted.
Lynnwood is also confused about the topic of discussion when he says "Puts a bit of a damper on the whole 'models assume we have negative carbon output!' kind of thing". The supercomputer models of the atmosphere, oceans, land and vegetation which Spencer is criticizing are completely different and separate from "models" of future economic activity, some of which optimistically include negative-carbon technology.
The two sets of models are even made by totally different people (economists et al vs physicists, oceanographers, ecologists, et al) Folks like Lynnwood simplistically reduce the work of thousands of scientists around the world into a single concept called "models" which can then be dismissed in its entirety, with little thought.
Roy Spencer is right but 95% of the climate scientists on the planet are wrong ? really?
I've heard this before. It's used often as an argument, and it works now with me just about as well as it worked on my parents when I was in high school. I don't care if all your friends believe in CAGW, that just makes a lot of people wrong, assuming Roy Spencer is correct.
Make an argument on CAGW that is not an appeal to authority then I might believe you. What would help a lot to convince me is a focus on finding solutions. Widespread support for nuclear power among the CAGW community would certainly help their cause. We can have the near certain global scale suckage that is CAGW or the teeny tiny chance of localized suckage that is another Fukushima. If you choose to avoid the risk of another Fukushima style event by banning all future nuclear power then I find your conviction to solve this problem very weak, and therefore your argument very weak.
and they're liars. and Al Gore is fat.
Well, we can at least halfway agree here. I'll let you ponder on which half.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Modelling an analogue systems with infinite levels of complexity will always involve a degree of error.
There's also error bars on the measurements. I'll read news articles on how "it's been the hottest July/year/whatever on record!" What's the error bars on that? What's the level of confidence in those numbers? Often we are talking a fraction of a tenth of a degree C here so the "hottest" of whatever seems very suspect, and theoretical even. Perhaps that's because I'll often read beyond the headline, or even the first paragraph. It's also because I realize that so many of these historical measurements were done with people just reading a mercury thermometer back in 1867. I'm sure those 150 year old records were generally correct and were often done with great care to the accuracy, but what's the expected error on that?
If throughout history we based all our decisions on such logic we would still be in the stone age, which is what climate change deniers will return us to if we choose to listen to their moronic arguments.
This sky is falling scaremongering bullshit isn't buying any points with me either. I'm sure it will likely suck but even the models show this change will be very gradual and over a very long time. If the problem needed to be solved now then let's start building nuclear power rather than wait for solar power to get cheaper than coal. If we're just waiting for solar power to get cheap then we got time to calm down and stop shoveling the bullshit. If we don't have that time then use that shovel to break ground on some nuclear power plants instead of making the bullshit deeper.
How that for logic?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Einstein on consensus. Just takes one set of data to invalidate a model. The fact that so many work so hard to obfuscate that fact of science - by appealing to consensus - makes most skeptics dig in further. It's OK to say your models are wrong - and get to work making them better.
And yes, Spencer's actual, measured data (NOT a model) starts from 1979 - a relatively short time! GIven that there is so much divergence between the model and actual measured data over such a short time, wouldn't that lead one to conclude that the errors in the model are not 2nd or 3rd order effects, but primary effects? If you can get factors of 2 or more divergence in a relatively short time - what confidence does that provide when extrapolating those models to 2, 3 or more times longer durations?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
assuming Roy Spencer is correct.
uh-huh. You get to assume that the lone wolf is correct, but if I argue that knowledgeable people, who have studied the problem are correct i'm engaging in some sort of "if all your friends jumped in a lake" argument.
"my friends" believe CAGW because knowledgeable people who have studied the problem believe it.
Make an argument on CAGW that is not an appeal to authority then I might believe you
Do you even know what "appeal to authority" as an argument means ?
if i tell you that quantum physics is real because a bunch of physicist think it's real, is that an appeal to authority ?
Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.
climate scientist are, in fact, an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.
Well, we can at least halfway agree here. I'll let you ponder on which half.
No we're not agreeing halfway on anything. You make false and disingenuos arguments. we have nothing to agree about. you're denying reality because of some bullshit worldview.
Absolute statements are never true
There's an easier solution to rising water -- move further inland. Its not like the 6 or 10 or whatever it is these days foot rise will happen over night.
Does not work for plenty of people/countries/islands.
Look on a damn map.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So, Al Gore is not fat?
You mean the Roy Spencer, the creationist who thinks that climate change is impossible because God will fix it all?
The guy signed his name to this declaration:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
They have not thought of a way to make a profit from telling people. At the end of the day, that is all Climate change is, a way to get rich off of people. Or maybe they don't think people are ready to believe the lie yet.
Dr. Roy Spencer [drroyspencer.com], funded solely by Government grants (not "Big Oil"), lays out the actual data and shows that 95% of all climate models agree that actual measured data is wrong [drroyspencer.com]. The models, basically, do not model actually all that well.
So: the models could be underestimating the warming: which is what the article says?
Puts a bit of a damper on the whole "models assume we have negative carbon output!" kind of thing, doesn't it?
No: just the opposite. If Dr Roy is right, and the models do not predict within the expected error, then it is just as likely that they are underestimating as overestimating: in fact, all sorts of disastrous consequences that we had ruled out (due to modelling) come back into the range of possibilities to consider. So if he is right, then the correct course of action is a massive, unprecedented intervention to prevent further climate change and avoid the worst effects. Not the relatively gentle (but still robust) course of action suggested by modelling.
Unless you have some secret knowledge that proves the models are overestimating: knowledge you could only obtain from a better model. In which case, where is this model?
If they wanted to pretend that nuclear power isn't the most ludicrously expensive power source ever invented by man, sure. It never would have existed without many billions of taxpayer dollars underwriting each and every plant that's ever been constructed.
You don't need to link to Roy Spencer (if you don't want to). You can link to peer reviewed studies. There are plenty of studies showing they're wrong. This too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Which you'll have no shortage of, if you rely on quacks like Spencer. When even Exxon-funded scientists admit that climate change is happening and humans are driving it, why bother with this line of denialism?
Sure, models are simplifications - but in this case the models are off by more than twice their error bars. And they continue to diverge even further.
Sigh. References?
You want to get rid of the nuclear power subsidies? So do I. The subsidies largely just pay for the costs imposed by the government anyway. Take away some of the government costs and nuclear won't be so expensive.
While we're at it let's get rid of the wind and solar subsidies too.
If the goal is low CO2 power and the government supporting it with regulation and subsidies then wind, solar, and nuclear should all be on an equal footing.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We need technology which uses solar energy to convert airborne CO2 back into hydrocarbons. The technology is to be deployed in deserts. They hydrogen could be provided by pumping water to those deserts.
For transporting large quantities of energy, hydrocarbons are better than batteries. They are safer than batteries, because the technology does not depend upon making barriers, among different chemicals, as thin as possible. When using batteries to transport energy, you must transport both materials which react to release the energy. When transporting hydrocarbons, you need to transport only one material, because the other material (oxygen) gets transported for free in your behalf by Nature.
The biggest drawback of the technology is the entrenched interests in using fossil fuels from deep in land and in sea. Those interests would face huge losses if people switch to usage of solar-created hydrocarbons in their factories, cars and airplanes.
That's right, the models don't quite match the empirical evidence, they are somewhat conservative. I presume Spencer has noted that the models are conservative?
No it does not.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth...
Aren't you sick of 'Climatedot' publishing bullshit like this every single day? Every. Single. Day.
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
Ah, the usual paranoid nut job denialist shit for brains bullshit. Fuck off back under your rock and let the adults talk.
The chemical processes for turning CO2 back into fuel have been well-known for decades!
It's just that clueless people love to spread the meme of it being unknown!
We simply didn't do it, because it is quite inefficient. But who cares? Put it next to a solar power tower and some water, and run it only during the day.
The size doesn't matter either. We've got enough desert, oceans, and even desert coasts.
The real question is, how we get anyone to be less short-sighted than his life is short, and invest in the future of his children than only in his own.
Hold on to your tinfoil hats, crazy speculation follows.
First some background. Back in early 2000's the IPCC was criticized for fear-mongering, when they included a worst case scenario in their projections. Measured warming since those predictions has far outstripped the worst case scenario predictions, and warming has shifted gears again in the last 5 years, outstripping revised predictions. 16 of the 17 hottest years on record global are this century. I've read a few articles and papers that notice this mismatch between what as supposedly solid science and measured reality, nobody is talking about if there was more motivation there than just cautious science. There's a number of reasons for real though, better models, new stuff we know about global climate. But still, one wonders.
Now we are also getting studies popping up forecasting quite alarming warming and sea level rises, along with studies of paleo-climate revealing how fast the climate can actually change when it's really pouring it on (Try 1 degree warming... per *decade*) they appear to outliers that can be dismissed in the light of the totality of good research, but there's a good many of them. We're also getting analysis like the original article, showing that we're being fed some form of optimistic scenario deliberately, it's being played down, and perhaps intentionally - they know slack science-illiterate journalism will miss that kind of thing hiding plain sight.
I'm thinking there is a good chance climate change is worse than predicted and there is a big chance that we can't really humanly do much about it, even if we up-ended the global order to focus on this one task. I also suspect a faction of the deniers (the non-crazy faction of them) know it's real and worse that expected, but for economic reasons are casting doubt to stall drastic action which would be devastating to some special interests (Of which a number aren't even really related to the petroleum industry). The are taking their last runs at revenue extraction from every pie they have their fingers in before the sunset. Some which may prefer a disaster to befall humanity because they can capitalize off that too.
My point is, it's not a case of truth vs denial, within each side of the issue there are sub factions driving their own take on what to do. Even in the cautious science end, through best intentions toning things down to not frighten everybody too much, but frighten them enough to do something. But ultimately we're being lied to by absolutely everybody.
After all when motivating populations to act, the "we can fix climate change" is a better sell than "we can slow it down a bit".
It's a nutty idea to entertain, but much milder than many conspiracy theories and I'm starting to get creeped out at things supporting this idea. I like my crazy theories better when they aren't the least bit real! Very open to debunking please.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
The only effective way of binding CO2 that we know of is planting forests, but the problem is that that amount of land that is available for forests is decreasing rather than increasing as people convert forest into agricultural, commercial and residential land. When the global population is increasing with no signs of stopping or clear ways to stop it, this development is unfortunately only going to get worse as time goes on.
Only solution I can think of is to try to make the use of land much more effective so that de-fortestation can be stopped and maybe even reversed. Building higher density housing (i.e apartments) increasing crop yields (i.e more GMOs and better ways of farming) and trying to make commercial land in a more effective way (factories and warehouses stacked on top of each other?). None of these are however going to be easy to get done, specially in the U.S people want their massive houses, thanks to neo-ludite scaremongering many people view GMOs about as favorably as leaded gasoline and companies sure as hell won't like the idea of having to build their warehouses and factories more compactly or having share buildings with other companies.
I suppose this once again runs into the #1 problem when trying to fight for any environmental cause, it often inconveniences people and people don't like being inconvenienced. Instead they try to avoid being inconvenienced by either claiming that the environmental cause is a hoax, that other people should be inconvenienced rather than them or that the inconvenience is so burdensome the environmental cause is a lesser problem than the inconvenience.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
The time of nuclear energy plants has passed. Get over it. Move on.
Forestation. This is how carbon has been bound for millions if not billions of years. The problem we currently have is because we are releasing huge amounts of that carbon. Creating industrial processes for rebinding it would be silly: those need the energy we gain by burning fossil fuel. Instead not burning it in the first place would be needed. Once we figured out how to do that, massive forestation _without_ burning the wood afterwards. A positive side effect might be that in a few centuries, slow-grown wood for musical instruments might become more available again, improving quality of life.
Roy Spencer is right but 95% of the climate scientists on the planet are wrong ? really?
I've heard this before. It's used often as an argument, and it works now with me just about as well as it worked on my parents when I was in high school. I don't care if all your friends believe in CAGW, that just makes a lot of people wrong, assuming Roy Spencer is correct.
Make an argument on CAGW that is not an appeal to authority then I might believe you.
Except you won't. He gave a link to a detailed page which makes hundreds of detailed arguments knocking down not only every point that you made but every point that your expert ever made. Instead of answering the arguments, you picked one thing that you could spin as an "appeal to authority" and started spinning. If you read through sceptical science, picked specific details that you thought were wrong, made predictions about future knowledge in advance of them being possible to determine and you turned out to be right the you would become worth listening to. As it is, every climate change denialist who has ever actually tried this has ended up being convinced that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans.
One of these years, they'll discover that trees take carbon out of the air, but until then ... go ahead and panic. (BTW, it is a know figure of exactly how many acres of trees it would take to become a carbon neutral civilization, and it would cost far less than a moon landing.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmssrVInP0
I've heard this before. It's used often as an argument, and it works now with me just about as well as it worked on my parents when I was in high school. I don't care if all your friends believe in CAGW, that just makes a lot of people wrong, assuming Roy Spencer is correct.
Why would we assume that?
Make an argument on CAGW that is not an appeal to authority then I might believe you. What would help a lot to convince me is a focus on finding solutions.
That reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Do you also refuse to believe in diseases that don't have cures?
And whose problem is it, if you don't accept the reality of CO2 driven climate change? Because it sounds like you are trying to make it our problem: a classic burden of proof fallacy. If you have some better explanation as to what happens when the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are doubled, feel free to post that explanation, along with observational proof.
And our descendants even more so.
The climate models that the climate lobby is shrieking about massively overestimate temperature estimates. Legit science makes predictions and climate science cannot do so
Actually this is already very doable without any need for GMOing or patenting life. It's called pasture with managed rotational grazing. Trees pull about 1.4 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere a year. Managed rotationally grazed pasture pulls double that and produces a side benefit of natural, organic fertilizer spread on the land by the animals and meat to eat.
Save the planet - eat more (pastured) meat.
And whose problem is it, if you don't accept the reality of CO2 driven climate change? Because it sounds like you are trying to make it our problem: a classic burden of proof fallacy. If you have some better explanation as to what happens when the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are doubled, feel free to post that explanation, along with observational proof.
I'm saying this again. My doubt arises from the lack of urgency on responding to the problem. I offered an "all the above" solution. That is, "all the above" includes nuclear power. If you want to convince me that CO2 output is a problem then just tell me that you accept nuclear power as part of the "all the above" solution.
If you cannot accept that we, as Americans, need to build a new nuclear power plant every month, then we have a problem.
If you cannot accept that we, as a species, need to build a new nuclear power plant on Earth every week, then I question your commitment to solve this problem and perhaps even that the problem exists.
These two are tied together in my mind, to accept that CAGW is a real threat then nuclear power must be a large part of the solution. If anyone cannot support nuclear power to avert the problems of CAGW then I must assume that CAGW is not the threat so many claim it is.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"appeal to authority"
Fallacy: The CEO of Shell said the earth is flat, therefore I believe him. (CEO's do not necessary possess physics knowledge)
Good: All Climate Scientists agree: AGW is real.
Listen dude, we all listen to experts. Thats a good thing.
What they don't tell you about 101 of the 116 models the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses.
There fixed that for you.
The problem that the union has is those in the union *now* aren't the ones that will be affected by the negotiations now. It's short sighted, like so much humans do.
...and whatever "problems" you think your country has due to immigrants... well, it's going to get a lot worse. Given the political difficulties various countries are having right now with that particular subject, it's not looking too bright for us in the future - not necessarily any 'real' problems, but imagined and perceived ones turned into political problems. Yep, plenty of upheaval coming up.
Paris Accord , like Kyoto, is a major political joke. Until ALL nations stop building new coal plants, CO2 will continue rising. At this time, the world would be better off figuring out how to deal with much higher global temps, along with higher ocean levels. Personally, I'm hoping that amoc stops enough to trigger ice age.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As long as America pumps our 3.5 times the world average CO2 it won't matter what other countries do.
I don't think you know what you are saying. Only two of the models are more conservative than the actual measurements - the other 88 are over the measurements, and most by a factor of 3 or more.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
assuming Roy Spencer is correct. uh-huh. You get to assume that the lone wolf is correct, but if I argue that knowledgeable people, who have studied the problem are correct i'm engaging in some sort of "if all your friends jumped in a lake" argument.
"my friends" believe CAGW because knowledgeable people who have studied the problem believe it.
Just look at the data. Dr. Spencer is presenting actual, measured data. The others? They are models, not data. So when actual measured data and models conflict - who wins? Who do you believe?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Here you go. It was in my original post. Just take a look at the data, look at what the models predict. The data shows about 0.3 deg C increase in temperature. The mean of the models is over twice that. Many are pushing 3 to 4 times the actual measurements.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Ahhh. I see, an award winning NASA scientist, who presents data rather than models, is a quack. Attack the messenger, not the message - brilliant strategy!
Does not invalidate his data, though.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)
OVER-forecast the warming trend. Then the graph (which should be easy to read) shows that 88 of 90 models show MORE warming than actual measurements, and the mean of those models is over twice that of the actual data. How you get from that to "underestimating", I'd like to see...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Widespread support for nuclear power among the CAGW community would certainly help their cause.
There are lots of ways to mitigate climate change. Why do they have to unanimously support one single solution in one single CO2 sector to be believable? Also I'd love to see your data that backs up that believers of AGW are unilaterally against nuclear power - I suspect you are just pigeon-holing them to better align with your views.
Earth needs a tailpipe.
If we can figure out a way to export it to Mars, we might kill 2 birds with one rock.
that's the only way this works out for us. Limit your breeding to a maximum of 2 new carbon footprints per family and we might make it.
As in, what are the heat trapping effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.
do they really think that it's normal for lots and lots of scientists to be wrong AND lie about it, but that one person is the real purveyor of truth.
Yea, it's not like sugar and John Yudkin or anything...
With no "crisis", ~75% of alarmist, taxpayer-funded climate scientists will be unemployed. So of course there's a crisis, and it's worse than we thought!
What percentage of priests believe (or claim to believe) in God?
If you really want to stop global warming the most important carbon to remove from the atmosphere is the kind that walks around on two legs.
Great carbon sinks and if managed properly, can last years and years. When full, top it off with sod and build a golf course.
It's gonna take a lot of carbon when the AIs decide they need gigatons of Buckytubes to build space elevators.
How are YOU going to defend your Purity Of Essence when the nanobots come for your precious bodily carbon?!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Stop eating meat. Stop eating dairy products. It will save your health and give your kids breathing space in the future for further change. Electric cars are just a feel-good diversion.
If anyone tries to tell you others and shows you studies, find out who hires these "scientists" and what companies they're affiliated with. 90% of the time, that tells you all you need to now.
uh-huh. You get to assume that the lone wolf is correct, but if I argue that knowledgeable people, who have studied the problem are correct i'm engaging in some sort of "if all your friends jumped in a lake" argument.
"my friends" believe CAGW because knowledgeable people who have studied the problem believe it.
GP parroted a claim by Roy Spencer that the climate models 'aren't all that good'.
Forget Roy Spencer because I've seen plenty of stuff from him that was cherry picking BS.
The claim though actually rings true. Even a dead clock is right twice a year and all.
Don't take somebody else's word for it though as some kind of my church leaders are better than yours contest. The IPCC looked at climate models, many, many different peer review climate models. Here is an excerpt from many eyes looking at many different models (and a link to the full article):
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
So that's citing at least 8 different journal articles on the subject, somewhat reliable. The state of the art in climate modelling still doesn't get clouds correct, so they have to hand tune them to make the TOA energy balance right. If they don't, the models drift to an unrealistic state.
Now, the Top Of Atmosphere energy balance is the ONLY important thing to predict regarding CAGW. Increased CO2 ONLY affects the planet by swinging the TOA energy balance. The factor that the models aren't good enough to get right without hand tuning for unknowns...
We know the planet is warming. We know our CO2 emissions are contributing. We even know that the last time CO2 stayed at current levels temperatures were much higher. What we lack, is a good century level simulation or prediction of what our annual emission trends will do to swing things. The climate models are the only good tool we have for that, and they aren't up to that task yet, period.
We know qualitatively that reducing our emissions of CO2 is good, we are NOT able to quantify it though. Is halving CO2 emissions better than adapting to the changes in climate? We don't even know the change that halving has on the climate, so we don't know.
Well yeah, if you direct the outlet far from shore. Otherwise, you've made a very tiny river, damn near *all* (because I know there are a few scant exceptions) of which dump into -- the oceans.
You're either mongering or blissfully unaware of the volume of human usage and, say, the Mississippi or Amazon.
As opposed to *your* fantasy of destruction?
You want to get rid of the nuclear power subsidies? So do I. The subsidies largely just pay for the costs imposed by the government anyway. Take away some of the government costs and nuclear won't be so expensive.
Bollocks. Here in the UK the government underwrite the cost of insurance, decommissioning, long term storage etc because no private company would risk or be able to afford it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So, if this is true, than it just doesn't matter what we do, and we may as well simply enjoy ourselves until the planet burns. There'd be no point in putting ourselves through all the hassle of conservation. Buy that gas guzzler now...have fun! It'll be like getting a BJ on a plane that's about to crash.
Just another day in Paradise
Heretofore vertical farming techniques used closed building designs. How about open to air multi level buildings to maximize veg surface area to sun. Perhaps it would be possible to add sun chimneys and led lighting for the darker interior areas?
If you have even a basic understanding of chemistry and physics, you can prove to yourself the global warming is caused by us. It's not hard. A high school AP student could derive it from basic principles and black body physics.
In fact, the first climate model for this was developed back in the 1890's by Svante Arrhenius (a.k.a, the father of modern chemistry). He predicted that man's activities, if left unchecked, would end up warming the world due to an increase in greenhouse gases.
The theory of AGW is older than relativity.
~X~
Look, I know you're all into conspiracy theories here and don't want to change cause you're anti-progress, but we literally have tree-topped pine shrubs with a two-year life cycle. They last 40 years, we top them at knee height for the root/trunk, and harvest the resulting growth above every two years which then converts into biofuel.
That fixes carbon. We're growing it in Eastern Washington. Check out the Bioresource Science and Engineering B.Sc. program at the UW, it has details.
We also do blue-green algae and are working on marine bioresource too (different program).
Stop using "tech" when we already have perfectly good plants that do this already.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What's Slashdot's carbon footprint? Not just the hosting, but people browsing it, posting here. How many of you that are scared of the climate changing still have your computers turned on? Playing video games? Watching movies or TV? You drive a car to work? All of that is contributing to greenhouse gases. If you're saying things are truly that desperate, and you're not doing every single thing to reduce your own emissions, well, you're part of the problem.
Don't lose sleep, it is non-anthropomorphic.
Your appeal to the fraudulent 95% "consensus" makes you look foolish.
Spencer has made very valuable contribution to this field along with many others. Problem is, people like you dismiss their work out of hand and vilify them because he may have pointed out the flaws of some alarmist
So my question is why do you dismiss valid science that disagrees with your conclusion?
All the models showed Hillary Clinton was going to win.
Except she didn't.
All the models show AGW is real, but only 42% of Americans believe it is real.
And the East Anglia Institute showed all the "peer reviewed studies" were really just propped up facades trying to prevent nay sayers from having a voice.
So I dismiss the herd appeals. Scientists only slightly different members of the corrupt scoundrels club.
a cow-methane reclamation device, self-powered, strapped and plugged right at the source. yeah. that's right. moo.
Nitrogen must indeed be 'fixed' but the raw material **is** available from the air. Phosphorus, not so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/pdf/scientificamerican0609-54.pdf
Me and my friends jump in the lake all the time.
Sometimes we use a rope swing tied to a tall tree for an extra boost. Sometimes we tow each other behind a fast boat.
It's fun! So yes, I would jump in the lake.
If you asked the same question but used an active volcano my answer would be reconsidered.
Those were predictions of absolute worst case scenarios. Few scientists took them seriously but of course the media would rather report on unlikely sensational worst case scenarios rather then the slow burning disaster that most mainstream models predict
Not all of the predictions listed are as you describe. One was from the original IPCC report. You know, that crowd of guys who rode Al Gore's coat tails to share a Nobel Prize with him. More than a few scientists took them seriously. In fact, it seems to me it has been described as enough to make up a 'consensus'. They also weren't predicting the worst case, but the expected business as usual scenario. Here's a link to the report and a quote of the claim made:
Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0 3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2C to 0 5C) This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1C above the present value (about 2C above that in the pre-industrial period) by 2025...
So, the IPCC's first report predicted we'd hit 2C above pre-industrial temps less than 10 years from now. We aren't on track for that, and we certainly haven't derailed our emissions away from the business as usual scenario.
Simple. Trump sucks so just hang him out any window and his most excellent suction will remove all that nasty stuff in a few hours.
Problem solved.
OK everyone, stop exhaling!
Couple climate change mass hysteria with a fear of going against the grain and public ridicule, and you don't even have to take "paychecks" into account.
You are a bully trying to assert that "models" are "facts." That is funny.
Where is this model?
Huh? What do countries have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure you can move from one country to another. And we've got these fancy new things called "boats" if you need to get off your island. Plus as I noted, there's a good chance we'll be losing 80% of the population to starvation anyway so that'll free up a lot of land area.
Nobody's saying it will be easy. I'm just suggesting it will be easier than inventing fusion and then building insanely complex pump systems to save a few coastal cities that may or may not even matter by the time the question comes to bear, depending on how the food supply pans out.
This won't work. First, pastured meat comes in much lower quantitiy per acre than feedlot mean. It also grows much slower on grass than on corn/soy. That means a pastured cow will take more water and land than feedlot cattle. We simply do not have the land to make the same quantity of pasture cows anymore than Ford can make more cars by taking them off the assembly line and handbuilding them from scratch.
That means you'll eat less meat and pay more for it. I'm fine with that but I wonder if you even thought your comment through.
Here's my problem with the CAGW alarmists. They say it is urgent that we reduce our CO2 output immediately. I say fine, let's build more nuclear power plant starting right now. But these people will think up every excuse they can to try to not use nuclear power. They bring up costs, safety, or whatever. I look at the numbers, nuclear is right now, today, cheaper and safer than solar, and has a lower CO2 output. Nope, still can't use it. Well, if we can't use something that is demonstrably better than solar right now then I have to question the resolve to solve the problem. If they will not accept nuclear power as part of the solution to the problem then I must wonder if there is a problem at all.
Once I hear these people demand nuclear power then I will believe their claims of an immediate problem that requires immediate solutions. Even if they give a reluctant acceptance that maybe we should do some building of nuclear power now, until solar and wind technology catches up, then I'll believe the problem is in need of an immediate solution.
So long as they scream both that we need to do something now and that something cannot include nuclear power then they are just sounding like fools to me. Which is it? Is this an immediate threat that even "bad" nuclear is an acceptable solution? Or, is nuclear so "bad" that the end of humanity by CAGW is preferable?
So long as nuclear power is "worse" than CAGW then I see no reason to fear CAGW.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Both politically driven. This is like watching the left turn on itself because 'Hollywood exploits women and children for sex'.
I'm saying this again. My doubt arises from the lack of urgency on responding to the problem.
Lack of urgency from whom?
I'll have to assume from yourself, since you are just as responsible for providing solutions as anybody else.
I'll say this again: Your refusal to accept there is a problem because the solution is difficult/painful reeks of intellectual dishonesty - like refusing to accept that there is a problem with cancer because cancer is hard to address.
If you cannot accept that we, as Americans, need to build a new nuclear power plant every month, then we have a problem.
1. I'm not an American. What a weird assumption to make.
2. No: YOU have a problem. You want a solution that is generally considered uneconomical. If you want to build cheaper Nuclear power, by all means, do so. If you want to convince others that it is cheaper than the economics say, then by all means, do that. Neither of those things is our problem to deal with.
If you cannot accept that we, as a species, need to build a new nuclear power plant on Earth every week, then I question your commitment to solve this problem and perhaps even that the problem exists.
You have some mental issue where you are fixated with Nuclear power and want others to pay for it, rather than providing an actual solution.
These two are tied together in my mind, to accept that CAGW is a real threat then nuclear power must be a large part of the solution.
The linking of those 2 things together in your mind is a problem of your mind. See a therapist.
You don't know what you're talking about. Pastured meat is superior quality to feedlot meat. The taste of pastured meat is far better and the fatty acid profile is far better. The question of quality is not about mass production. The issue with feedlots is that it is contributing to global warming. Pasturing solves this. But you failed to put it together.
We also have plenty of land for pasturing. What we need is for people like you, who don't know what you're talking about, to stop building on land so it can stay in agriculture and nature. One of the things you probably don't understand since you've already demonstrated remarkable ignorance on this topic is that pasture lands are more bio-diverse than forest lands.
There are plenty of climate experts who think nuclear power will help. Stop making shut up to buttres your myopic world view.
I think it is hilarious how all the endless problems with transmission lines and electric cars that you guys spit out if solar is mentioned magically vanish when the electricity is nuclear, however.
My thought of course is- has that ever been known to happen?
I don't. Perhaps those who have models should work on improving them, because what they have now don't work at all for predicting what could happen. Or should we just accept continued reliance on models which are provably incorrect by a factor of 2 or more?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The New Yorker recently had a good article on the subject of carbon capture: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world. Any discussion of climate change suffers from a confusion by some people between the various levels of cause and effect: 1. The greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide (and some other gases) absorb infrared light -- that is, they have a color we can't see. The Earth's warmth emits more infrared than comes in, therefore the gases trap energy here. 2. Global warming: the cumulative effect of the greenhouse effect. To doubt this is to deny basic physics. 3. Climate change: at this level, yes, there is uncertainty -- not over whether it will change, but how. This is as complex as the planet: all the clouds, the winds, plants and oceans. Modeling it is difficult. Yet climate must change somehow in response to global warming from the greenhouse effect. Do we really want to test our ability to cope with whatever those changes may be? If we could see infrared, we would be able to see that the color of the sky has changed, and there would be no doubt or argument about global warming, and we would have done much more to avert climate change.
(Trying to fix formatting)
The New Yorker recently had a good article on the subject of carbon capture: https://www.newyorker.com/maga... [newyorker.com].
Any discussion of climate change suffers from a confusion by some people between the various levels of cause and effect:
1. The greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide (and some other gases) absorb infrared light -- that is, they have a color we can't see. The Earth's warmth emits more infrared than comes in, therefore the gases trap energy here.
2. Global warming: the cumulative effect of the greenhouse effect. To doubt this is to deny basic physics.
3. Climate change: at this level, yes, there is uncertainty -- not over whether it will change, but how. This is as complex as the planet: all the clouds, the winds, plants and oceans. Modeling it is difficult. Yet climate must change somehow in response to global warming from the greenhouse effect. Do we really want to test our ability to cope with whatever those changes may be?
If we could see infrared, we would be able to see that the color of the sky has changed, and there would be no doubt or argument about global warming, and we would have done much more to avert climate change.
We should stop worrying. It's already too late to stop warming, and it will correct itself in 100-200 years when oil and coal run out.
Long before this was a popular topic, I worried about what the planet would look like when billions of Asians start living like Americans. That time is now and for the next 50 years. Someday India, China, Africa and South America will have as many cars per capita as Americans. As soon as they make enough money they will want what everyone else has, and it will be sold to them. So as far as warming -- you ain't seen nothin' yet.
The end game is when oil/gas/coal run out. I'm guessing 100-200 years, but who knows? Humans will have to live on much more expensive nuclear power. That means population reduction and the earth will slowly return to a more natural state.
I don't.
Then I suspect your argument relies on the notion that climate forecasting can be done by using regression. It can't. If it could, scientists would use regression line instead of investing years of work in climate models.
By the way, regression off a single variable (surface land OR sea temperature) IS a model. Just happens to be a very poor one.
Perhaps those who have models should work on improving them, because what they have now don't work at all for predicting what could happen.
Well, that's your assertion: an assertion that seems to be based on an obvious error. We'll wait for evidence to the contrary I should think.
Or should we just accept continued reliance on models which are provably incorrect by a factor of 2 or more?
Since the alternative to modelling is to panic and burn our industry to the ground, I'd prefer not to be so alarmist as Dr Roy and your good self. We'll wait for you guys to provide some actual evidence before lighting the torches.
Doh, my apologies I missed the beginning of the thread. But the response:
I see the reference shows a graph of a bunch of climate models - predictions starting in 1983. The best fit line I'll guess is around 38 degree incline upward, and I know the prediction is horrible catastrophic consequences in the next 100yrs if it's fulfilled. The actual measurements show a fit line - again I'll guesstimate - around ~23 degrees, less than the ~38. But it's still tracking upwards at ~23 degrees. That's still a huge increase. If it was 1983 and some homeless guy told me he could predict the future, and global temps were going to rise, and then they did, I'd suddenly give the guy my attention. But this graph isn't even a straight line - it winds down a bit, then up, down, up, meanders. The measured temps follow it - exactly lockstep. I now think the homeless guy had traveled back from the future because he NAILED the prediction, albeit got the magnitude a bit off. Then you say no, the graph was made by a bunch of scientists with research and computer models (a few of which were exactly right btw). Now, I'm less impressed - well, sure, that's their job, I'm not surprised they were right. There must be some influence most of their models haven't taken complete account of yet. I'm sure they're working on finding it, but it doesn't discount the huge body of evidence they compiled already. When their dire predictions change, and if that happened I'm sure some scientists would become famous by proving it, then everyone, including myself, will cheer in relief. But the linked blog feels like he's trying to cherry-pick the worst results from others' work to me.
All that said, at least you really did provide some numbers, which is more than most people from the denial side, I do have to commend that.
--- retracted jokes about the website background and book sales ---
that synthesize organic chemicals
I mean Elon Musk will be wanting terraforming plants soon enough right. He's got this.
Movies have taught kids about lone wolf saviours. Practically every disaster movie has one or two such types. Is it a big surprise that now when they have grown up they think world actually works that way?
We reap what we sow. Consume stupid entertainment, get stupid offspring.
Actually the article above is too optimistic. Only solution now is to get rid of leaders like Trump, Obama, Abe, Shi, and Merkel. No one is taking this crisis seriously. However once the climate models are shown to be under estimates of the danger as they are, action will start. It's time try to get to ISS space station or at least move to higher ground. Mars colony may be our only hope.
Whenever you hear someone crying, "The sky is falling!" take a careful note of who responds and _why_.
Whether true or not, climate change has been used increasingly as leverage for people to make personal gains. Nothing wrong with that except when it could cause a greater harm. The politician who leverages the fear with promises to "address the issue" to gain office is disreputable but relatively benign. But the businessman or scientist who comes forward with a claim of being able to actually control/manipulate the climate, well take a careful measure of those claims. It is one thing to be able to observe that a change is taking place, it's another to actually be able to control that change. If science is still surprised by discoveries about the atmosphere and climate, then it probably does not comprehend the climate and atmosphere sufficiently to predict what the results of any manipulation will be. That is dangerous and potentially harmful.
Fact: the climate is changing. It has always been changing and always will.
Fact: humans by their numbers and activity do affect the climate in some way.
Not fact: humans understand how climate works. We don't.
Fact: humans can reduce their impact on the planet by simply being less wasteful, by using resources as efficiently as possible. Why can't that be the message? (Answer: because it's not profitable in any way.)
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
You are in la-la land.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
Peace of Burned Cake: equivalent of 171.169 Giza Piramids in frozen carbon. Almost eazy.
Note that Dr. Spencer is not a "denialist", he's a NASA scientist who believes we are warming, but that CO2 is not the primary cause. He does what a scientist should do: collects data, and then draws conclusions. If his hypothesis doesn't stand up to the data, he tosses the hypothesis (which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what the IPCC does). And he's using the 90 models from the IPCC - not cherry picked at all. These are the actual models the IPCC uses to reach its claims. And continues to use, even though the data shows the models are wrong. Additionally, the data shows the warming "pausing" for around 10-12 years, from ~2002 to 2015.
In fact, there is ONE model that actually seems to fit the measured data: the oceanic oscillations model of Professor Don Easterbrook. His model not only tracks the historical record - but seems to match the current satellite record as well. I know that Professor Easterbrook is typically ignored by a lot of the pro-AGW side because he's not a "climatologist", but he is a geologist with a lot of good training, and a background in oceanic/land interactions. More importantly, his model actually fits better than those from the climatologists. Shall we ignore his model - even though it is better - because his background isn't "acceptable"?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You do know that Dr. Spencer does not deny warming? He's just questioning if it's driven by CO2 - because the CO2-based models don't match up with actual measurements. Plot CO2 increases relative to temperature and you'll find there is no correlation. Yet we continue to use models and decide policy for billions of people based upon the conclusion that it is all CO2 that drives any warming we are experiencing.
So just to clarify: your position is to keep using failed models (provably so) rather than start over? Ignore the data, it's the model and desired outcomes that matter?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Those movies with people & dinosaurs, they were the future!
The CO2 rises, plant life grows like crazy.
With not so many people around, reptiles and insects start growing huge again.
The few surviving people (named Rubble and Flintstone) must use their wits to survive as they go to work in the stone quarry.
PlaynBass
Well, plenty of countries are to flat, so there is no room inland.
I doubt we get world wide starvations or 80% population loss.
Sooner or later other countries will let refugees in, but the transition phases will be war times.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, plenty of countries are to flat, so there is no room inland.
But most aren't. Certainly some like the Netherlands will be worse off than others, but again given all the other expected issues, I don't think an arbitrarily line drawn on a map will be our biggest problem. And again this isn't just going to happen over night. You won't be fine one day and then have to migrate a half billion people the next. It will be people slowly moving away from the coasts over the course of 50-100 years most likely.
I doubt we get world wide starvations or 80% population loss.
Then you're a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am. We've already got something like a billion people that are at or close to starvation level, during a time when we've got plenty of food to go around but are just too greedy to distribute it to people (and countries) that can't afford to pay or are controlled by dictators that prefer to keep their population hungry as a method of control. As our ability to farm food diminishes, that isn't exactly a scenario I see getting better.
Sooner or later other countries will let refugees in, but the transition phases will be war times.
There will almost certainly be war times regardless. We are (assuming our models are even remotely accurate) looking at the loss of a few percent of land mass, which as you pointed out will disproportionately affect some countries more than others, as well as significant extinction of a large part of the biosphere which will likely also not happen in a perfectly equal way. If we lose say, rice but keep potatoes.. you can bet for example that China will become a lot more interested taking control of Mongolia and perhaps even invading into Russia.
Again this is all a long way out. Its of course hard to say much of anything with complete certainty, especially given that fact that you never know if someone might come up with a workable solution tomorrow and just solve the problem anyway.. I'm just extrapolating from what we currently know, and what we predict based on the assumption that human behavior probably isn't going to change much until its too late and we're looking at a "me" problem rather than a "grandkids" problem.
You say that, unless the world does just what you think it should do, it's not a problem?
That's cute. There are other approaches.
So if you can find one person who's not for nuclear power, you won't believe in AGW?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And we're back to Roy Spencer, whom your advanced telepathic powers have determined is the only honest scientist in the field? And we should disregard what almost all smart people who have studied the topic thoroughly think?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And you know that his data is correct and nobody else's is - how?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You do know that Dr. Spencer does not deny warming? He's just questioning if it's driven by CO2 - because the CO2-based models don't match up with actual measurements.
Eesh. He'll be crushed when someone mentions that the radiative properties of CO2 aren't based on modelling, and neither is the theory of CO2 driven climate. Climate will still be influenced by CO2, regardless of how inept we are at modelling.
Plot CO2 increases relative to temperature and you'll find there is no correlation [wattsupwiththat.com]. Yet we continue to use models and decide policy for billions of people based upon the conclusion that it is all CO2 that drives any warming we are experiencing.
So now Anthony Watts is also saying that we should immediately panic and burn our industry to the ground? I'd prefer not to be so alarmist.
So just to clarify: your position is to keep using failed models (provably so) rather than start over? Ignore the data, it's the model and desired outcomes that matter?
Well, the problem seems to be that as our conversation progresses the foundation of the idea that there is a problem with the models keeps getting more and more eroded. First Dr Roy, and now Anthony Watts. My personal view: we should see some actual evidence that there is a problem with the models before panicking and and taking the more drastic approach to combating climate change.
Yeah. He is.
It's funny how denialists accuse scientists of making shit up and then latch on to the first one who does, when his opinions match their ideology.
Influenced and driven are diferent things. YOU influence the climate, but do you drive it? The bottom line is that the models simple don't match up with the actual evidence - which is exactly what you espouse you want. Dr. Spencer shows that very thing. So if the models are provably wrong (empirical data doesn't support the models), then why should we continue to rely upon the models to predict what could happen in the future?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because his is actual data; the model results are simply outputs of, well, models.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So what dataset supports the model results? If your theoretical model and empirical data don't match - which do you choose to believe?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Citing a poor research based article does not an expert make you. The fact that you hind behind the mask of an anonymous coward makes you less credible still. If you actually understood the topic and the article you would realize how the headline is misleading and you are wrong.
There's PLENTY of data behind those models, much of which you're free to peruse. If Spencer is the one with the Truth, why hasn't he convinced lots of people in the field?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Note that Dr. Spencer is not a "denialist", he's a [scientist that makes his argument with data]
Fair enough. I haven't looked it up yet - how much of his work is published or gone through peer-review? (if you object to that metric, then fine, we can limit the discussion, but it would definitely be more information for me to consider)
he's using the 90 models from the IPCC - not cherry picked at all
That's not what I meant about cherry-picking. I meant he's finding the easiest arguments to make, focusing on data points that aren't as clear. Which I should admit isn't wrong at all as a scientist, but to base a political decision on one point of non-absolute knowledge is cherry-picking in order to reach a pre-determined belief. Even in this climate models case, it's not the most convincing (to me, yet) argument he makes. The 90 models predicted a bunch of different paths, but followed the same slopes, and the results were not outside of the bounds. This means to me there is a factor that most of the models didn't consider or didn't weigh enough, but they were still generally right - and the global temps are still increasing, despite this respite.
It would make sense to me that the deep ocean is possibly temporarily absorbing more of the energy than previously believed, which they mention, and it explains why ocean levels are still rising (does Spencer refute that too - idk?) despite the lower temperatures than expected. The 2014 IPCC report showed there were already extreme precipitation events related to this, and I live in SE Texas, where we just burst through our previous weather event rainfall record - not by 2% or 5%, but by 57% (or 75% depending how you measure)! Nothing like 4 500-year floods in 3 years to convince me that things are changing. There's no dispute humans are contributing greenhouse gases, and most scientists agree (like 97% or so?) that greenhouse gases raise temperatures.
So it still sounds to me like nothing has changed - we should do what we can to immediately "clean up". You'd have to present just a little more refuting information to convince me for this one topic, and then repeat the process for the hundred other topics in the reports IPCC puts out. Until then, I have a risk/reward argument:
What happens if Spencer is right, and 97% of scientists are wrong, but we listen to them anyway? The US invents and produces a bunch of stuff that we can sell to the world, enriching ourselves, and providing clean air for our children. Cancer rates go down and our standard of living goes up.
What happens if Spencer is wrong, everyone else is right, but we trust him anyway? Floods, droughts, disease, food production scarcity since farmlands have to move so much, war, refugees, more war.
His model not only tracks the historical record - but seems to match the current satellite record as well.
Fine by me, throw it in there with the rest, I hope he's submitted his model and I'd like to see the peer review of the methodologies.
Influenced and driven are diferent things.
So CO2 levels can influence the climate? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
The bottom line is that the models simple don't match up with the actual evidence
If that's true, the the only logical course is for us to immediately move to shut down all our industry and cause worldwide economic chaos. Is that what you want? Do you see why we might want more evidence than you have provided before doing that?
- which is exactly what you espouse you want.
I want the models to not be accurate? I guess I don't know my own mind.
So if the models are provably wrong (empirical data doesn't support the models), then why should we continue to rely upon the models to predict what could happen in the future?
Because the alternate is that we have to assume the worst case scenario. You openly admit that CO2 levels influence the climate, but can't tell us what the extent of that influence is, or what will happen in 10 years if we continue on our current path. So, if you are right, then we need to either:
1. Invest heavily in building a model suite we can rely on - and I mean heavily, A hundred or thousand times the current funding level.
2. Give up on modeling and basically panic. Shutdown all of our CO2 emitters as fast as we can. Slaughter our farm animals, shut down the coal mines, abandon our vehicles.
Which of those strategies are you recommending?
Apparently a lot less than is claimed, given the fact that the models assume much more warming that has actually happened. So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that are provably false?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And yet - the models are wrong. Data was used to "fit" the models, but the models don't fit reality. They are incapable of accurately predicting future temperatures - as proven by the satellite record. So which do you believe - the model results or the empirical data? And falling back on the "wisdom of the masses" is not acceptable in science - theories need to be proven or at least confirmed, and if data doesn't support the theory, it's the theory that is tossed - not the data. Except apparently for climate "science"...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The ones who submit their claims for peer review as opposed to making shit up? Any more is-water-wet questions?
So CO2 levels can influence the climate? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
Apparently a lot less than is claimed, given the fact that the models assume much more warming that has actually happened.
Claimed by who? Is there observation evidence to support your assertion? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
The bottom line is that the models simple don't match up with the actual evidence
If that's true, the the only logical course is for us to immediately move to shut down all our industry and cause worldwide economic chaos. Is that what you want? Do you see why we might want more evidence than you have provided before doing that?
Did you forget your glasses?
So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that are provably false?
Any evidence for your claim that the models are false?
So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that [I assert without evidence are] false?
Fixd
Because the alternate is that we have to assume the worst case scenario. You openly admit that CO2 levels influence the climate, but can't tell us what the extent of that influence is, or what will happen in 10 years if we continue on our current path. So, if you are right, then we need to either:
1. Invest heavily in building a model suite we can rely on - and I mean heavily, A hundred or thousand times the current funding level.
2. Give up on modeling and basically panic. Shutdown all of our CO2 emitters as fast as we can. Slaughter our farm animals, shut down the coal mines, abandon our vehicles.
Which of those strategies are you recommending?
Good lord, are you being intentionally daft? Claimed by anyone who uses the IPCC models/papers as justification for anything! The models simply do not match observed reality - being 2 to 4 times TOO HIGH, over a short timeframe. Look at the data I've linked many times! You just do not want to admit that the models don't work. Let's make better ones, let's figure it out - but let's STOP trying to dictate policy on provably false models!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
That it's the new name for Global Warming.
I don't recall hearing the reason for the renaming. Rebranding. Whatever.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Good lord, are you being intentionally daft? Claimed by anyone who uses the IPCC models/papers as justification for anything!
There are no IPCC models.
There are plenty of people who say that the IPCC papers justify taking a deliberate, but relatively gentle approach to tackling climate change: you say these people are wrong? So we should instead move to immediately shut down all our industry and cripple our economies because the impacts of increasing CO2 on our climate is impossible to model?
The models simply do not match observed reality - being 2 to 4 times TOO HIGH, over a short timeframe.
Incorrect. Spencers argument is that his model sort of aligns to reality over a short time, so it must be correct. Other scientists took his model and ran it over longer periods, and it failed hopelessly. Did the climate mechanisms suddenly change in the year 2001? Or did Spencer build a model that simply reproduces what he already had in terms of observations over an absurdly short timeframe and has no predictive ability at all?
Look at the data I've linked many times!
Did you look at it yourself?
You just do not want to admit that the models don't work.
You contradict Spencer, who says that his model does. Who should I believe?