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.
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!
How strong does the evidence have to be before Republicans believe there's a real problem?
Table-ized A.I.
just show us how CO2 doesn't magically trap heat anymore then. You can find how-to's for the experiments on the net.
Just look at all the accurate claims about what would happen by today. I've been hearing this crap since the 70s. They always make extreme claims that will happen just far enough over the horizon to be unassailable, but require immediate action...but the threat never materializes.
I am comparing actual data to their dire predictions made 20 years ago and calling them on their shit. And, I will be the denier.
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.
What predictions? That there will be increased temperature and more erratic weather? Check, that happened.
That there would be meltoffs in the north and south poles? Check, that happened.
That there would be increases in methane output from permafrost? Check that happened.
That Cyclone and Tornado activity would increase? Check that happened.
A few years ago we had a run of straight 40c+ days lasting nearly a month in my home town. Thats never happened before. Over on the east coast of australia , every goddamn year we've had flooding events for nearly a decade now, and its running havock on the economy.
Its easy to put your fingers in your ears and try and nitpick predictions from 20 years ago at a time when modelling was in its infancy, whilst pretending the evidence in front of your very own eyes does not count somehow.
But that doesn't make you "scientific" or "skeptical". It makes you a gullible fools who falls for manipulative conspiracy theories.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
> Essentially we will purge ourselves from this planet and allow nature to go on about its business without us screwing with it.
Nature is also responsible for Venus and Mars which may have been habitable in their youth. Like your investment portfolio - "Past performance is no guarantee of future results".
And in a few billion years the Sun's going to eat this entire rock.
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!
lol. Wait, so if you have more storms, but by some fluke none of them actually hit land, then you actually have fewer storms?
Hilarious!
CO2's properties are well known. What you've just written is pure bullshit.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
China emits twice the amount of CO2 as the US. Increasing coal for electricity would further up that number. Yes, the same old bullshit, indeed!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How much of that debt was because of the stupid wars of the last President's predecessor and the Great Recession when deficit spending was actually warranted to minimize the economic chaos that ensued. The national debt is only an issue when there's a Democrat in the Whitehouse, otherwise as Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.", at least as long as there's a Republican in the Whitehouse.
But glaciers are disappearing elsewhere - and the overall trend is toward melting.
Just because Antarctica - which even if it's warming is still cold enough for snow to fall - accumulates ice doesn't change the fact that globally on average, land ice is melting and sea levels are rising. So your factoid - even if 'true', is an interesting, but ultimately meaningless data point in the discussion. But keep on listening to the Fox experts repeat it...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...