Slashdot Mirror
Earth Will Likely Be Much Warmer In 2100 Than We Anticipated, Scientists Warn (vice.com)
According to a new analysis of the most realistic climate models to date, global temperature rise by 2100 could be 15 percent higher than the highest projections from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What this means is that cuts in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) will have to be even greater than expected to meet the Paris climate target of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Motherboard reports: The world is a long way from making sufficient emission reductions to meet the Paris climate targets to begin with -- nevermind cutting out another 15 percent. But there's some good news, too. Both rich and poor countries have begun to move away from coal and oil, the two biggest CO2 sources, according to many energy analysts. Patrick Brown is a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, California, a co-author of the study published Wednesday in Nature. "Our results imply 15 percent less cumulative emissions than previously calculated [are needed] in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius," he told me. Brown and co-authors focused on finding out what future warming might be, using only the climate models that best replicate observations over the last 15-20 years. On a business-as-usual emissions trajectory, they found that the mean global temperature rise would be 4.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared to the IPCC estimate of 4.3 degrees Celsius. The latter estimate is considered catastrophic for our planet, and would lead to sea level rise of over 30 feet, potentially putting the homes of 600 million people underwater.
We should anticipate less so that to compensate for the anticipation effects.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Winter is coming
Is the global warming then fake news or alternative facts, or what is the FOX news' opinion on this? Has the orange baboon tweeted anything on it yet?
look on the bright side, when the bitcoin bubble bursts the temperature of the world will drop a degree or two.
I'm going to go do some more research on how to make a neuron in javascript and how to link them together and get input/output from a simple network. Have fun screaming and getting red in the face at people who undoubtedly just want to hee-haw laugh and hump their cousins.
Ah! The irrational ignorant fantasy world of born idiotic bubble dweller !
Somebody call Kevin Costner.
I agree with you, but can we make sure the slashdot commenters go first? A Javascript initiated bipartisan APK spam attack of some Hollywood dramatic sort might work
Global warming is real, but a 30 foot sea level rise by 2100 is not. The article's source was this article, but note right off the bat: "It would be a steady climb, with sea levels taking centuries to rise this far." Not by 2100. Sea level rises in response to climate forcing take time, they don't happen the instant that the atmosphere gets hotter. And it's a curve that accelerates with time (most of the rise is backloaded). It can take much of a millennium for sea levels to adjust to new atmospheric conditions.
For 2100, you're only looking at somewhere around 2m, give or take (up from previous ~1m estimates, which have been shown to underestimate accelerating rates of land ice loss). That said, the important thing is not the "2m higher on a typical day" aspect, but the "2m higher on top of storm surges" aspect.
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
To violate the sacred rule of only going green if the solution is market competive?
To educate people worldwide that having two children is the "sustainable" number?
... that the Earth will likely be much warmer In 2100
How strong does the evidence have to be before Republicans believe there's a real problem?
Table-ized A.I.
I'll take my chances with a half degree.
just show us how CO2 doesn't magically trap heat anymore then. You can find how-to's for the experiments on the net.
2m is _huge_. Just think of all of the coastal cities whose street level is within that height difference.
I'd really like the Kochs (and all their lapdogs [1], among them Trump) to be around, and me, by that time. I'd kick them in the nuts, time and again.
That's where religious people may have an advantage: were I religious, I'd find solace in the idea that those assholes are going straight to hell and will be tortured there for eternity.
[1] In the interest of equality, you ask, where are the lapbitches? "drill, baby drill" Palin might qualify, I'd say.
How many trees would you have to plant so that they can consume that extra CO2? Would that be cheaper or more expensive than reducing emissions? (Ignoring the fact that more trees mean more green areas). Surely somebody must have already calculated that?
Good! Burn this fucker up!
Did they take into account eighty years of future evolution of plants and algae to sacrifice efficiency for speed in a high CO2 environment? Because that could throw it off my more than fifteen percent.
Sea level rises in response to climate forcing take time, they don't happen the instant that the atmosphere gets hotter. And it's a curve that accelerates with time (most of the rise is backloaded).
Our models predicting a curvature have been proven wrong every year since 1993 when we started satellite tracking of sea level rise. The actual data shows an impressively linear 3mm per year. There is no evidence refuting that linear rise. There is no evidence supporting the model's prediction of a curvature.
Forever suckers...
The curvature kicks in when frozen permafrost areas thaw and vent frozen methane and all kinds of stuff into a positive feedback loop that starts getting away from us in measurable realtime, at which point WE ARE COMPLETELY FUCKED.
Once the sea-level rises and fisheries die out, New England and California will be washed away, leaving nothing in the U.S. but flyover country. And Chicago I guess. Of course, the energy moguls responsible for this will be able to easily relocate.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It is likely going to be much higher co2 emissions because massive numbers of new coal plants are still going in. China continues to add 30-50 GW of new coal plants each year just in China. At the same time, they are adding 100+ GW of new coal plants in other nations. Then on top of that, they are exporting their coal which is some of the worst in the world. Then add in trump trying to save coal in America. We will not add more coal here, but we will likely increase export. The only good part is that it is much cleaner than China's, but it will still pollute heavily regardless.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When the supervolcano at Yellowstone goes up and she haven't figured out how to mitigate it, global warming will be out the window. Say hello instead to nuclear winter style cooling.
What about your childre... oh wait, this is Slashdot
What's wrong with global warming, my hometown finally get out of -30C winters thanks to it.
I doubt that I'll live to see 125 years of age, as far as I care the Statue of Liberty can be flooded by then.
Yes, I'm done trying to save your planet. I'll just use what I got and screw you. If you insist in ignoring science, you deserve to die. Along with your kids.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I just found out that there's literally TRILLIONS of gallons of water RUSHING into the ocean every day. All we need to do to stop the ocean from rising is block up all the rivers!
We wouldn't be in this mess were it not for most republicans (and large swaths of democrats, mind you) having been bought out by Koch brother's money et al.
Go look up who finances the Cato institute, for just one very little thread in this vast tissue to know what I mean.
Given the age of my children and the expected lifespan of Americans there's a 50/50 chance they'll be dead too.
Science isn't done just to inform you.
When someone tells you something will happen in more than 80 years the only sane choice you have is to ignore. Same thing goes for the past.
Population growth will become infinite by Friday, November 13, 2026
15% of 300K is a lot more than 15% of 25C.
Solar power is cheaper than coal fired electricity. Who needs to save the planet, why not just do the math and save yourself some money?
Plus Trump is way old, in his 70's, he'll be gone soon enough, good riddence to bad rubbish.
Yep acidification is actually a change from basic to less basic, a long way from acidic.
This AC nailed it, bravo.
I posted here before with facts and figures about temperatures, the human body tolerances, etc.
Then I read the comments and realized I WANT most of these people dead. Trying to help or protect them with facts, logic, science, is met with a loud DERRRRRRP of politics and swearing and obnoxiousness. It would be better if they were dead.
Kiss your bible and masturbate with a loaded gun while saluting a poster of trump wearing a 'make amurikuh great again' hat. The stupidness of it all is so thick you couldn't put a nick in it with a plasma torch.
None of it is really worth it, the problem isn't the environment, it isn't CO2, it is us as a collective whole. There is something broken inside our collective consciousness and reason, sanity...nothing can fix it.
I'm going to go do some more research on how to make a neuron in javascript and how to link them together and get input/output from a simple network. Have fun screaming and getting red in the face at people who undoubtedly just want to hee-haw laugh and hump their cousins.
Better you explain to us why it is so conveniently "forgotten" every time, that heat-trapping effect of CO2 is proportional to logarithm of its concentration? ;)
Pro-tip: compare the earths average temp with that of the moon.
Go read the Lazard report. Sure we can make solar cheaper than nuclear, it just can't be on our rooftops. Again, go read the report.
The most expensive nuclear power is still cheaper than the cheapest residential solar installation. Rooftop solar on commercial and industrial rooftops is the same price as nuclear. The only kind of solar energy source we know of that can provide power through even a portion of the night is solar thermal with storage. The only kind of solar that is cheaper than nuclear is utility scale PV, and even then it's on par of costs with natural gas. Rooftop solar isn't even all that cheap compared to natural gas peak power generation, and you'll need a lot of that for when the sun goes down.
So, sure, let's use solar. It will only triple the cost of electricity, if we're lucky. Since natural gas peak power turbines burn three times the amount of gas for the same energy as gas combined cycle generation it's also quite possible using solar will do nothing to reduce carbon output. No reduction in CO2 output and triple the cost. Great idea... idiots.
If people want to talk about using wind, that's fine by me. It's costs is on par with natural gas and coal, just be prepared to burn natural gas in inefficient gas turbines for the times the wind isn't blowing. Combined the natural gas turbines and the windmills might be cheaper than nuclear but then your CO2 output is still going to be pretty high. Not near as high as coal, that's quite likely, but still much higher than nuclear.
Another thing I often hear is that solar will get cheaper. But when? Ten years? But I thought we had to do something NOW or we are all DOOOOOOMED!!!
If the goal is reducing CO2 output as low as we can, as quickly as we can, at the lowest costs, then nuclear will have to be part of the plan. It says so right in that Lazard report. Maybe its not spelled out that way, at least not in those exact words, but it's in the report.
Or we can just decide that if solar is going to be cheaper than nuclear in 2, 10, or 50 years and we have 100 years until certain doom unless we change our ways then fine, we can wait. If we must act now though then it's wind, nuclear, and natural gas. Sure, fine, go build your solar collectors out in the desert. I don't care so long as you aren't keeping people from building nuclear power at the same time.
Go look at the Lazard report. If you find something that contradicts my assessment then let me know, it's possible I missed something important.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
1) The Science is Settled
2) "Oh No, things are much worse than we thought". A story based on an outlier which makes apocalyptic predictions
3) If anyone disputes this go to 1). Also accuse them of being an outlier which makes things seem less apocalyptic.
By which process the future is both known with perfect accuracy and continuously getting worse unless we adopt some expensive policy. Actually if you read carefully almost no one globally is adopting these policies. The few places that did - Germany for example - found their CO2 emissions rising, and many that ignored them completely like the US found CO2 emissions falling due to a switch from coal to fracked gas.
And if you look at instrument readings it's clear that the models overstated the amount of warming.
See for example
https://imgur.com/a/w5KKQ
From this talk
https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...
Ironically people like Matt Ridley who get denounced as deniers are making predictions which are near the bottom of the range of the model predictions. Meanwhile environmental activists are making predictions which are way above that range.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I want to be buried in sunglasses, cargo shorts, flip flops and have plenty of sun screen on so I can enjoy the balmy weather from 6 feet under.
FUN QUESTION: What percentage of species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct according to scientists?
FUN FOLLOWUP QUESTION: Why shouldn't humans become part of the statistic?
Carl Sagan was remarkably correct about human arrogance.
We'll make great pets
As far as the IPCC goes, the "most realistic" models are still not remotely realistic. No model they have used has even been able to predict current conditions based on historical input.
is it forgotten in published studies ?
Trump declared climate change as a Chinese hoax - problem solved! Rather odd given that most of his golf courses will be under water soon.
So, about a foot (30cm) of sea-level rise by 2100, then?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I am not denying human influence on climate change, or even the numbers in TFA, but predictions about what happens 80 years from now are rather funny if you take into account that just one major volcano outbreak (read: mount Fuji, the Vesuvian supervolcano system, Yellowstone, or the unpronouceable Icelandic ones) can turn those numbers upon their heads and throw us into a long nuclear winter. And the probabilty is high for at least one of those popping within our lifetimes.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Fail
For the Panel's Third Assessment Report, paragraph 14.2.2.2 page 774 it says in my translation: "In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. "
More Fail
The 'actual data' shows an impressively linear 3mm rise per year, when you fit a straight line to the data.
The actual altimetry data is scattered all over the place and shows multiple seasonal signals.
We are not in a position to tell today from the data what shape the rise is. It doesn't rule out a curve - we are currently on the part where the higher order differentials are below the noise in the data.
Disclaimer: I'm involved in the production of the 'actual data'.
OH NO!! It's going to be 0.2 warmer instead of 0.1 THAT'S A 100% INCREASE. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE....unless you implement Socialism on a global scale and then we will be ok, well maybe. We may need all your rights too.
Cue R.E.M. It's the End of the World as We Know it.
is it forgotten in published studies ?
Sometimes, yeah, even there; square-root and even linear approximations get introduced and then quietly extended far out their feasibility range.
And in fear-mongering PR, every damned time.
And here we have a lunatic president who has rolled back borders on national parks so that one trillion dollars worth of coal can be mined. Denial is a disease in and of itself. Many of us who live near beaches have watched the ocean rise for decades. In Florida we have condominiums on the beach that used to be a long way from the water. Now the waves slap the sides of the condos. Currently we have an abundance of fresh water. We even have a severe excess of fresh water. But our water tables are such that very little rise in sea levels can disrupt our entire water supply system for the most crowded part of the state. That would be an economic holocaust.
Yeah, I can think of... none. How many are just 2 meters out of reach, I actually have no idea.
Oh thank god! We are saved! We will not die in the ice age these losers were telling us we would die from back in the 1970's. But don't worry, the Ozone Hole is going to fry us first... Oh Wait! that's been closing up. Perhaps the nuclear winter caused by the oil fires in Iraq that Dr. Sagen warned of will protect us... Oops! That didn't happen either.
Honestly, if these guys told me it would rain, I'd leave my umbrella in the car.
Listen, I don't go on the Internet for reasonable discourse. I need to be scared! Shocked! Amazed!
So don't you come in here with a metered sensibility and tell me that we aren't all going to die or that it won't be Michael Bay movie stuff with flood waters crashing through the central USA, because that's no fun.
Same old bullshit over and over.
Even if China doubled it's coal use for electricity, it still wouldn't produce as much CO2 as the USA.
There is going to be more arable land in Greenland!
Another scare headline from the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Anyone remember when the alarmists predicted that 2015 was the drop dead, no turning back, end of the world, we're gonna bake, deadline? How about the seas were going to inundate us? There would be no polar ice by 2015? That Greenland would be ice free?
All brought to you by the concerned (about enriching themselves) climate scientist and activists. Almost all of the predictions have been proven false or are outside the 95% confidence interval. So what do concerned (about their funding) scientists do? Issue new drop dead, no turning back, end of the world (please fund & support my research) hysteria. Again.
We will NOT pay a carbon tax, there are NO exceptions to this.
If government was serious about protecting the environment, they would have...
1. Require that all new factories be 100% emission free.
2. Eliminate high priced permits for Windmills and Solar and Geothermal
3. Stopped obstructing people from collecting their own rain water. For every gallon collected, it's a gallon that doesn't have to go through the filtration systems or be pumped to the home, and that means less fuel cost and less ware and tear on the equipment.
4. Stopped obstructing people from having a garden.
5. Used Tidal generators to purify sea water for drinking.
etc. etc.
Clearly those complaining are not really interested in what they boast.
I think your math is off. Wikipedia has the average sea rising between 0.8 and 3.3 mm/year. 100 years at 0.8 is 80 mm, or just more than 3 inches. at 3.3 mm/year, the rise would be 330 mm or just over a foot. Far less than your 1-2 meter hysteria.
What repercussions do they face for their careless scaremongering?
Climate change has always been real for millions of years. It was what caused the past Ice Ages and periods of tropics, and we didn't cause those either. BTW, we are currently on track for another major climate change following those same models of past Ice ages and tropics; In fact the natural changes should be much more extreme than we are seeing so far.
Sure, man does contribute, but I can make the Earth spin faster by running into the west.
Here you can see for yourself:
http://geology.com/sea-level-r...
Zoom up on the coasts of the US while toggling between 0m and 2m.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The best thing the common person can do to reduce emissions right now is to get rich. I am not kidding or trolling. Plenty of information on how to do this. The Millionaire Next Door and Your Money or Your Life are my favorite books on the topic. There a half a dozen good blogs about it as well. It is simple, but here is the catch. It takes a little bit of discipline and patience. It is extremely simple, spend a lot less than you bring in; use the rest to pay off debt and invest. Investing requires a good amount of reading to understand it and discipline to do it properly. Do this for a number of years and you are rich. How does this affect emissions? Examples:
Buy a new phone every four years instead of two. Less emissions from the mining, manufacturing, and transportation of phones.
Repair instead of replace. Clothes dryer no longer hot, replace the heating coil for a few dozen dollars instead of buy a new one. Don't know how - youtube. Less dryers manufactured, consequently less emissions.
You probably own a bigger car than you need. Most people would be well served with an economy car or small/mid sized sedan.
Fuck fashion - I'd rather be rich than look rich - and fuck those materialistic assholes judging me on my old but functional clothes.
Adjust your thermostat, your body will adjust to warmer/colder temperatures.
Eat in season food, cheaper and less emissions from shipping shit half way around the world.
Cook at home. Less emissions from delivery and driving to restaurants. Don't know how - youtube
Here is the kicker, get the money in / out ratio to more than 2, you can retire in your 40s, late 20s or early 30s if you can get it even higher or are a great investor.
I don't really understand the purpose of these constant doom-and-gloom projections.
So then what is the point?
The purpose is that there are STILL people who deny it (see the numerous comments in this thread), and who justify not doing anything by pointing out that the model is not perfect and we don't know everything. The point is to keep building that evidence.
Plus, this work also informs mitigation. Where we build new infrastructure is very different in a world where we expect sea levels to rise by 1m than one where we expect sea levels to rise 3m.
Is not helping, it's just making things worse.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
It is in the US.
I think slashdot needs to adjust its spam filter. I posted a comment more than 10 minutes ago and it hasn't showed up yet. If anyone from slashdot is reading this, it recommends two books. I think I know what phrase got it flagged. If it is what I think, it doesn't make a lot of sense that it would be spam considering I didn't post any links with it.
Weeds that were normally killed by the yearly frost, will survive winter. Insects that get killed by frost will survive and invade new niches.
Lots of agricultural land, never under any threat of any sea level rise, might get rendered unusable for agriculture due the pests that do not start from scratch every year. Very large fluctuations in food supply can happen and it would trigger wars and migration like we have seen before. These are bigger threats than sea level rise. And why we immediately jump to sea level rise? Why is the media playing up the "sea level rise" doomsday a lot more than they deserve to? Any blood red Iowa farmer will tell you forsythia is blooming four weeks early now, croci are breaking ground in December, and daffodils and tulips are emerging in March. He will tell you the bugs that he has never seen before invading his property. But these stories are not getting the media attention.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It's corporations in general. Things one wouldn't normally associate with environmental damage - big agriculture, big manufacturing - have a big impact, too. Technology is also guilty in this regard. Spread the blame, no one industry can be singled out. Retarded games like 'AI' and and automated cars, and 'becoming the new cable providers, complete with original content' (silicon valley are not the most sagely or impressive lot) particularly in the name of profit and especially because their hype is about a million percent overblown and fulfills the legitimate needs of exactly no one, are like a teen playing nintendo in the closet while his neighborhood is on fire. Cool? Sure. Important? Debatable. When their house burns down too, literally all of that stuff will be irrelevant, including the money.
Add to that the fact that actual greenhouses require heat and don't escalate into an out-of-control state when you stick extra layers of transparency over them.
So - the data doesn't show it, but models predict it. That's kind of the GP's point - the models, so far, have not been confirmed by the actual data. So why do we keep relying upon them?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is about half to one third of what the IPCC models claim it is. That's what the actual data says. Nobody is denying that CO2 isn't a "greenhouse gas", just that it is not the most dominant one (water vapor and methane trounce it) and that its impact is vastly overrated (this study, for one). However, it's easy to regulate economies based upon their CO2 emissions, so it is convenient to force massive wealth transfers, such as the Paris Accord was to do (where China, the leading emitter of CO2, got to get away with just saying it will address the CO2 issue in 2030 - not that it will start now, or do anything after 2030, just consider it).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This Chinese "global warming" hoax is about as real as Trump's teeth.
Yeah, did you notice in yesterday's speech how his dentures were giving him trouble and he was slurring his words?
Or maybe he's just having a stroke.
We better hurry up and elect more Democrats or we are all going to die, right? Everyone already knows that not fucking up the environment is a good thing but this issue has been so polluted by crazy lefty politics it has become just plain annoying to hear about.
For your entertainment:
http://dailysignal.com/2009/11/17/global-warming-ate-my-homework-100-things-blamed-on-global-warming
Looking forward to it! Lots of agenda articles allowed through the /. censors today. Lovely TECH headlines here today.
Everyone needs to take a step back before going nutz over climate change. Is it problem, yes, but its not the only problem. Was watching nature last night. The high desserts are being destroyed thru habitat disruption. Some of its oil and gas but some of its also wind farms and the service industry around them.
There is no free lunch. Yes the cautionary principle tells us we should limit CO2 emissions when possible but that isn't the only concern. We should also consider the environmental consequences of "renewables" because they are not free from negative impacts either, but so many seem to pretend they are.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The purpose is to determine what is likely to happen and how fast; not to make you feel bad. Doom and gloom is just one of many responses you can choose to the information.
but if the projections hold up, there's no physical way that we can end up avoiding the consequences
Correct. But it is definitely feasible to prepare ourselves for consequences, and it might even be possible to slow the rate at which they arrive. Those things are a very big deal.
You seem to be arguing we don't need to know how big or fast change is coming; if that's our play, then we have large, expensive, and disruptive attempts at last-minute adaptation in store for us. We will get blindsided by each manifestation of change as if it came out of the blue. That means we'll throw a lot of money at futile responses to things we could have prepared for, e.g. multiple rebuilding of properties in floodplains as if what the risk maps say are "100 year floods" still only come every 100 years.
Knowing how fast and how large change is coming, we can take steps to preserve things; jobs, industries, wealth, our ways of life. Pretending that nothing is going on will only make preserving those things prohibitively expensive for most of us.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And in the meantime you can snack on popcorn as Progressives have daily anxiety attacks over the fact that fewer and fewer people believe in their histrionics.
In other words, people are predicting what will give them more research grant money
hearsay.
actual published scientific studies ? SOURCE ?
This Bullshit is why the Alarmists are doubted all the time.
The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.
The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.
A link to denier site ? huh.
Water vapor and methane are much bigger heat trappers. We should outlaw beer, pickled eggs and soda to stop people from farting.
As in, 'The heat trapping effects of CO2 are logarithmic'...
But don't let that stop you from being hysterical.
Sure it will.
However, if we do nothing, we will reach the point of no return in 2030. It is time to act. However, western politicians are afraid some industry could suffer and the citizens could get angry, because they told them that they do not have to change. Things will fix themselves. Anyway, who cares? D. Trump works towards a new world war.
Wow. AC ignores everything because he doesn't like the message! the study was published in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, was written by Drs. Christ and McNider, and 100% funded by US Department of Energy money, allocated in 2016. But hey - denier! Easy label to toss out when you don't like the data...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not to mention usage of an anecdote about daughter's academic performance as proof that climate change is not real.
It's not an argument at all. What it is is that I don't understand what the point of nearly weekly new doom predictions is. Certainly more than one per month.
My point is that we already know how big or fast it's coming and as time advances, it looks more like our pessimistic projections might not be pessimistic enough. Supposing that we refine the models ever further to perfection, are more articles like this going to change anything? I suppose on slashdot it's aimed at a nerdy crowd and so I'm sure some find it interesting on that level and I don't really have too much issue with that. But on an interpersonal level, there is absolutely nothing I can do to prepare (short of potentially moving and having a crystal ball to see what areas will be acceptably affected by the changes) or slow the rate of consequences. Week after week articles come out like this. Are they trying to convince people that don't think there's a problem that there's a problem? Why would people that ignore these sources already suddenly change their minds regardless of how many articles there are?
It's important for the people that can actually do things in this vein for sure, but I'm not one and I don't think most other people are either. I think of this in an end-user sense. I'm the end user of construction/infrastructure/etc. but I don't build those things. I guess I'm tired of hearing about things that I have no control over. Yeah, I can skip over an article. I can skip over articles here or there. But skipping over every single one of these seems infeasible. Since I have no control over these articles either, I'd settle for understanding why there are so many.
Yay, the billionaire Koch brothers got their precious tax cut. How should we fund this? By cutting medicare and social security of course! F*$% all those oldsters and cripples, they are just drains on society anyway, right?
Geologic timescales mean Yellowstone may or but probably will not erupt by 2100. Gw induced sea rise on the other hand will certainly happen. I'll concede that some other volcano may erupt before 2100 and emit enough ash to effect temporary global cooling, but come on man, it would be temporary and we will pick up where we left off in 5 to 10 years...
strange, why do you link to wattsupwiththat and not to the journal then ?
That said, the important thing is not the "2m higher on a typical day" aspect, but the "2m higher on top of storm surges" aspect.
That does not make any sense.
Sea levels are on most nautic maps defined as the lowes thinkable point in the lowest low tide (earth, moon, sun in one direction).
So sea levle rises would obviously based on some nautic system, and not on a hypothetical storm surge.
In other words: if you look on a sea map, the water depths are given for low tide, in nip tide situations.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, we haave no actual data for the year 2100 ... you watched to much 12 monkeys?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, it does not really matter which 'climate gas' has the strongest effect.
At least not on the level of yous stupidity and ignorance.
CO2 is the main driver, because it is the root of increased water vapour and CH4.
Or do you think the water vapour came magically into existance?
There wont be any wealth transfer, regardless how the climate problem is tackled.
Or do you really think changing the climate back to where it was/should be or how ever you call it makes any poor person on the planet richer and any rich person on the planet less rich?
If you think that you are an idiot.
Regardless how the planet is run: the rich peope will run it and the poor will stay poor. If you believe otherwise you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Our models predicting a curvature have been proven wrong every year since 1993 when we started satellite tracking of sea level rise. The actual data shows an impressively linear 3mm per year. There is no evidence refuting that linear rise. There is no evidence supporting the model's prediction of a curvature.
Recent research has found some problems with earlier satellite tracking of sea level rise:
Satellite SNAFU masked true sea level rise for decades
They'll all be under 3-20 feet of water by then.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Include the fake sea level data?
More anthropomorphic caused change super fail.
Um, you already pay carbon tax.
Every time you buy a good or service from China, Japan, Australia, Canada, the EU, or from some US states (the ones that actually are 60 percent of the US economy), you're paying a carbon tax.
If you don't have a local carbon tax, they get to keep the money in the other country and spend it there. If you had a carbon tax, it would be spent in your local economy.
Thanks for helping everyone else out by not having a local carbon tax!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The news keeps coming because news keeps happening. It may *feel* like the same news over and over to you, but the magnitude, speed, and precise distribution of change are all open scientific questions, and having precise answers to those questions is extremely valuable. These are things a scientifically literate populace needs to continue to be aware of.
Can you, as an isolated individual, stop the tide of change or mitigate the cost to society? No. But that's begging the question: you're not an isolated individual, you're a citizen. And as a group, an informed citizenry is extremely powerful, both in the sum of its individual actions (e.g. conservation), and its influence on public policy and business practice.
Can you, as an isolated individual, mitigate the impact of climate change on yourself? Absolutely. You say "moving" as if it were some kind of ridiculous idea, but if you are in a floodplain moving a few hundred yards as the crow flies could make a huge difference -- or if not, you can take steps to mitigate the impact of increased flooding on your property. You can review your investments to determine your financial exposure to change. You can steer your kids towards education and careers that will enable them to benefit from the adaptations society will have to make to climate change, rather than ones where they'll be vulnerable.
You are not helpless. But there are those who want you to feel helpless, because then you won't use the power you do have.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Someone predicted this before the "scientists". The book containing many predictions was published in our language in 1611, which said: "....the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." Hint: It is the most widely circulated book on the planet, but one of the least understood. The predictions it contains will come true. More about this prediction may be found by searching for it: "2 Peter 3:9-12 KJV"
..so fuck y'all.
Love,
President Tardo
Don't keep the Carbon locked up! CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Green houses are warm and verdant! Free the carbon for a warm and verdant future. plants will thrive, flowers will bloom and it may help us escape the coming heat death of the universe just a bit longer.
this sig is deprecated
Convenience?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And how many IPCC climate models puts water vapor as its main driver? Hint: the answer is less than 1.
And if it's not about wealth redistribution, then why are trillions of dollars committed to countries like China, India, and others - from countries in the EU, the US, etc - in an effort to reduce CO2 (which is, now we've agreed, not a driver in any climate change)?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
That's what you get when you anticipate predictions mostly based on things we know for sure. Most new things we learn make it worse, not better. Our estimates are not estimates, they're the lowers bounds.
0x or or snor perron?!
Every climate model also moddels water vapour, are you really such an idiot?
I don't know about trillions of money going from the US to China, tell me more about it.
Does the US have such a budget? Who does get the mone?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your claim is that a curve might be happening because of uncertainty due to any changes being within "noise in the data", but assume a rise anyway. So the sea level might not be rising at all, or might be decreasing.
We should wait until there is actual hard science to talk about.
If you're driving toward a cliff that you can see, do you ignore it because you're "not falling down yet"? It's a bit too late to hit the brakes if you wait until you are in freefall.
So not only is global warming not real but it'll be super duper awesome when it happens?
Could we just lower pollution and clean up the environment because it's the right thing to do? If we happen to solve global warming (should it exist [it exists.]) then that will just be icing on the nice clean cake that won't give everyone lung cancer.
I cannot fathom the mind of someone who thinks like a Captain Planet villain.
All your outdated and frankly made up shit is getting tiresome.
The US produces about twice the CO2 as China. Electricity isn't even the biggest CO2 emitter, but you only focus on it because you are full of shit.
Transportation is your biggest sector...Your biggest sector is increasing... Your second biggest only decreased because of the warmer weather in 2016...
Look at the graph at the bottom,https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30172 the one predicting the future CO2 emissions. The one where just about every scenario has increases for the next few years.
The only one that doesn't have increases is the high oil price scenario. With all the cheap fracking that is highly unlikely.
Keep focusing on electricity even though it's not the biggest. Your boss must be proud of you.
Draw a line on the map and suddenly China A and China b's pollution isn't as bad any more? What kind of magical bullshit thinking is this?
The US is far far worse, grow up and face reality ignorant troll.
Water vapor can not be the main driver of temperature change because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly controlled by temperature and it will quickly condense out if temperature drops. If something is controlled by temperature it can not drive temperature. Sure water vapor is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect but without the support of the non-condensing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2 and methane) the level of water vapor would also drop substantially.
All of the IPCC climate models include water vapor as a feedback effect of the warming from non-condensing greenhouse gases.
I have to use your post as a prime example of climate alarmism and why arguments like these put any movement towards dealing with emissions further back.
It is beyond ridiculous to think we will lose yearly frost across the majority of our planet on a yearly basis. Have you been outside California? Try coming north, and see just how much sunlight we get in a day here in Canada, where we have vast amounts of land, far bigger that your small coastal enclave. We've had temperatures below zero for months now, and this extends far below into Northern US. The effect on winter has been negligible for the last 50 years. If you tell anyone here the earth is going to warm up enough to get rid of winter, that's laughable.
So a majority of the earth will still get cold winters. I'm sure your point was that this will only be localized then right? Just a foolish argument - the vast majority of this planet is very, very cold.
I love the phrase, "at current rates". As if anything non trivial ever maintains the "current" rate over long time periods.
You're a religious faith based idiot. And have a terrible understanding of both statistics and how to apply them honestly to the real world.
...it doesn't.
We'll see soon enough.
br Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
And as ALWAYS happens, when the data doesn't fit the Marxist political agenda, just change the data. Broken sensors somehow ALWAYS seem to require "correction" in the "make or warmer" direction. ALWAYS.
Spare us your fake outrage. You are willfully ignorant of almost all the facts. You just try to muddy the waters claiming China bad, Europe bad, just to distract from the fact the US is much worse than either of them.
America is not only the easy target but the most obvious and logical one if you want to reduce CO2. You think if everyone else catches up to America it will be ok? Obviously the only practical solution if for America to come back to the more realistic levels of less polluting countries.
And as always happens when scientists find issues with measurements and make corrections the climate science deniers accuse the scientists of doing it for political reasons. It's actually projection. The deniers objections are political in nature so the other side must be doing that too. You should find competent scientists and have them examine the corrections to see if there is scientific validity to the corrections.
So they are twice as efficient compared to you. CO2 isn't only from electrical coal, so if that portion was doubled the total would't double. China could literally burn that extra amount just for fun, and they would still produce less per person than the US.
Facts and logic are clearly against you.
Here is the evidence of a curve: http://www.esa-sealevel-cci.or...
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
The data does show it http://www.esa-sealevel-cci.or...
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
It's still all a gamble. Scientists have recently discovered an unfortunately-configured glacier in the Antarctic. WHEN, not if, but when it melts, that one glacier alone will cause an AVERAGE sea rise of 6 meters. Work out yourself where that sea rise is higher or lower, and you'll be shorting sea-side properties around the equator in a second.
https://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/about/events/s-t-lee-lecture/s.t.-lee-lecture-2016
Joy to the world, la la la laaaaa ......
Models of unknown accuracy predict dire consequences assuming nothing changes. In what universe does nothing change? Zero.
The current environmental challenges are because people are wasteful, steadfastly refusing to use resources efficiently. That's the sum total of the problem and the solution.
There will continue to be more people. Their presence will affect the planet as they consume resources. What _can_ be done is consume with least impact and adapt to the changes that will inevitably happen.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing so for profit. Wake up.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
We are talking about the future simpleton.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30172
Don't let the facts get in the way of your entitlement. America produces and produced most of the CO2, but idiots like you seem to want to blame China instead of blaming yourselves for your own problems.
So China is forcing America to mine coal, and also forcing South America to burn it?
The saddest part is that people like you who blame China first, for no reason other than irrational hatred (or a few cents a post).
America is the biggest target because of ignorant people like you who are in denial to the facts that the US is such a major polluter. You think because you pumped out so much CO2 in the past that you are used to it, and it's ok to continue at your very high levels. But bad if any other country starts moving up towards you.
Per capita no longer matters apparently, so the easy solution is to split China into 4 countries North, East, South and West China.
Each new country will only produce about 2.5 kt of CO2 a year. A little less than half America's 5.1 kt.
The world will be saved...
2015 numbers
Do these models account for added heat from bitcoin mining and transactions?
Nice nick name :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Per capita no longer matters apparently,it's all country based. So the easy solution is to split China into 4 countries North, East, South and West China.
Each new country will be a bit bigger than America but only produce about 2.5 kt of CO2 a year. A little less than half America's 5.1 kt. 2015 numbers
The world will be saved...
Lets see how quickly you will both change your tune and not call for America, the new biggest polluter to cut their CO2 in half. But instead find some other excuse.
I can already guess, you will switch to GDP and tell us all that America is allowed to be the dirtiest because it is also the richest.
China is only the leading emitter if you're too stupid to realize it's far far bigger than just about every other country. Who entitles you to pump out so much CO2 with your extravagant lifestyle, but condemns any other country for trying to increase their standard of living to the same wasteful level as yours?
You are already churning out CO2 and it's too hard to stop, you got their first so you deserve to pollute so much? Please explain your 'thinking' as to why it's not your problem but other peoples?
They probably feel guilty for putting it all (and continuing to put more) CO2 into the air. Twice as much a person as China and over 8 times as much as India.
RWNJ's on the other hand have no shame.
It's still all bullshit from you anyway, where are the links for those trillions of dollars...
All those predictions made 20-30 years ago didn't take methane clathrate emissions and methane+CO2 from permafrost tundra (swamp) thawing into account.
The Leptav Sea (north of Siberia) has been bubbling out increasingly vast plumes of methane for the last 5-10 years - this was supposed to be impossible as methane emissions would be absorbed by the water, but in 2011 the plumes were reported to be 1km+ wide at the surface. The last global methane survey didn't take oceanic emissions into account as the researchers weren't aware of Leptav emissions. The amount coming out there could easily be a large chunk of the unaccountable "25% more than measured" that was blamed on farming.
Worse, if the continental shelf+margin clathrates are disturbed, at least 1GT of methane would come out instantly, possibly 5, maybe even 10.
Putting that in context, the Storegga Slides released about 5GT of methane and that release is at the knee point of where the last glaciation ended, temperatures spiked 1-3C and sea levels rapidly started increasing. We really do _NOT_ want oceanic methane burps. They could push things over from climate change into an Anoxic Oceanic Event.