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.
2m is _huge_. Just think of all of the coastal cities whose street level is within that height difference.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If it's as scriptless and meandering as that disaster was, I'm going to go buy a beachfront house and lock myself in the basement.
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
A tree takes time to grow. That doesn't mean the tree wont grow.
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? ;)
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 actually quite liked the militant Civic Nationalism in The Postman.
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;
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.
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.
It's almost as if you haven't seen any of those "highest temperate ever" stories that have been appearing every month for the last couple of decades.
No sig today...
It's only the highest temperature ever in the 2000s if you scrub out the actual highest temperature ever in the 1920s by saying the metering back then wasn't accurate. Except the metering were analog readings. That's the whole reason of "conspiracy" with the East Anglia data breech where it was revealed they dropped the inconvenient data to show warming. If you don't have warming, you don't need research, you don't need funding, and you don't have reasons to take from the rich nations to give to the poor.
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"
That seems to be what politics has done the last 30 years. Apparently wiping out humanity is some secret goal of politics. After attempts to sterilize the planet with nukes have failed, global warming seems to be the fallback-plan.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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'.
There is going to be more arable land in Greenland!
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
I sure hope so. Have you ever seen all the predicted effects of global warming put together? Neither had I, until I saw this article:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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)
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.
Funny, we just ended an 11 streak of no hurricanes in the US. Tornado activity continues to trend down. Antarctica is accumulating snow and ice mass faster than it's losing it. Methane has been increasing steadily since the 50s and Russia, the source of that permafrost was massively down in the 2000s, and still not close to the peak back in 1990. So that's all four of four of your "checked" predictions that are actual failures, not successes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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!
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.
The IPCC has done exactly this for years. The real outcomes have typically fallen in the "expected" to "bad" ranges, occasionally approaching the "worst case scenario" outcomes.
The data have always fallen on the "bad" end of the scale. In fact, they've put some effort into figuring out why things like ice melt and sea rise consistently end up worse than the predicted mid-range. You may see some improbable claims on occasion, but overall the climate shift has exceeded predictions. Comparing old predictions to new data has consistently shown one thing: the level of alarm is justified, and perhaps it should be higher.
When the expectations are bad outcomes and you consistently meet or exceed those expectations, you need to change what you're doing.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
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!
There can be global warming without acceleration.
Just like there can be sea water rise without acceleration as seen on tidal gauges in civilized nations ... but conveniently appearing on satellite data.
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.
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!
There are crazy lefties and crazy righties. Just because some lefties say stupid things does NOT mean there is not a climate problem. The Earth doesn't change based on the volume of nutty words coming out of human mouths. Advice: ignore crazies on BOTH sides.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
As in, 'The heat trapping effects of CO2 are logarithmic'...
But don't let that stop you from being hysterical.
DNA shows my ancestors came from Doggerland, for centuries now under the seas. So now we live up a hill (noted that many seaboard denizens haven't heard the news, from New Orleans to BanglaDesh). Up here, we'd be grateful for warmer weather. Make your own way, people. Darwin is watching.
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!
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!
Perhaps you should read and grasp the links you show.
The hurricane link is about hurricanes thad made _landfall_ in the _USA_
It ignores all other hurricanes, that did not make landfall, all taifoons etc. or Orkans.
You link about ice in Antarctica is also moot. The article claims that bottom line - due to global warming - there ends up more snow. Ice is melting a very little bit slower than it is repaxed by snow.
Befor that article researchers estimated Antarctica would contribute about 0.27mm sea level ride per year.
Now they estimate it is reducing the sea level rise by anout 0.23mm per year. The difference is 0.6mm in sea leacel rise: were they don't know from where it is comming
Oops, that was not the bullshit you wanted to tell us, right?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The trend over the last 20 to 25 years is definitely down. Not just for those that land (which tend to also follow the, for lack of a better word, trend), but for all, even those which dissipate over the ocean.
As far as Antarctica, what study shows the mass of snow and ice is not accumulating? it's gaining - not losing. In every single study you'll find that covers the entire continent (not just cherry-picked little areas).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
strange, why do you link to wattsupwiththat and not to the journal then ?
I had a similar experience but from a physical chemistry perspective. When you look at the IR+RAMAN spectra for CO2 and H2O it becomes clear that there is absolutely no amount of CO2 that will cause significant warming (the peaks from CO2 are already highly saturated, meaning adding more isn't going to make it any warmer--like having 50 washrags stacked on your chest and trying to get warm by stacking 50 more directly on top of them, where H2O is like a blanket).
Any observed warming can be easily explained with water vapor concentrations, which have also been increasing. The method to deal with that kind of warming doesn't involve shutting down all industry in the world and instituting global communism. In fact, since H2O is in such a tight equilibrium that warming can be fixed in a few days if it becomes bad enough that we have to do it.
You might want to read these articles about why your "CO2 is saturated" argument is wrong:
A saturated gassy argument
A saturated gassy argument - Part II
Also, I'm curious how you think we can fix the warming in a few days by doing something about water vapor? With over 70% of the planet covered by water I don't see any way of significantly affecting the level of water vapor in the atmosphere.
We should anticipate less so that to compensate for the anticipation effects.
We did. The official reports refused to include projections that were too pessimistic to make the results more politically palatable. To be fair, they also refused to include projections that projected cooling, and there were a couple. Then they took the average of the reports they decided to accept. They had to know they were low-balling the numbers. Unfortunately, it's starting to look like the correct models were some of the ones they rejected for being too pessimistic.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...
Have a look at principia-scientific.org if you want to see evidence for yourselves.
No, have a look at principia-scientific if you want to be mislead about the evidence.
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.
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.
There are lots of different predictions, and you can always find wrong ones. If I looked hard enough I could probably find one that projected glaciers in London. So you can't prove anything by retrospectively picking a prediction that was wrong. You need to either prospectively predict it was wrong and publish refutable reasons, of do a massive retrospective survey of all published models, which is a task nobody has been up to. The IPCC(?) did a prospective report on a bunch of models that they found acceptable and predicted certain signs of warming that could be expected. The models disagreed about exactly what those signs would be, which is not surprising as they were written by specialists in different areas. They rejected those models that they found too pessimistic (as well as many others), and published their report of what to expect. They were overly optimistic, so their predictions have been refuted, but because of their methodology this doesn't say which models were wrong how. My guess is that part of the mistake was that they rejected models that were too pessimistic, part of the mistake was that different models had interactions between the places where they were correct, and there were also feedback loops that nobody included. So they were all wrong, but not in the direction you appear to be proposing.
Picking one model, or cherry-picking features from a bunch of undocumented models, doesn't prove a goddamn thing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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! --
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! --
Why are you talking of the West? it certainly no longer matters what the U.S.A. does. Only what China and soon India does will matter. Greenies can't comprehend relative magnitudes.
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.
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...
The ozone hole is closing up because we actually got together and did something about it. Montreal Protocol
Can you add a link to the molar adsorptivity of CO2 for the IR spectrum where the water cross section doesn't overlap? The cross section is well-characterized, but I can't find out how much energy can be deposited into a mole of CO2 in that particular wavelength (5-8 micron) region.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
now we live up a hill
I hope you have plenty of guns for when the riot starts.
No sig today...
No, the trends are not down.
You are an idiot
You are an double idiot because you don't even grasp your own language.
We have three kinds of trends: flat, increase, decrease. E.g. we could have an increase of rents by about 10% over 3 years as a trend.
Suddenly we have only 7% over a course of 3 years. So the trend decreased (the trend is down) but the direction of the trend, an increase of rent has not changed at all.
As the amount of tropical storms has increased decade after decade, I don't see a change in the trends direction. Perhaps in its speed? No idea, I don't need to know how quickly the rate of devestating storms is increasing.
I ditched my stocks of Muenchner Rueck decades ago. (I guess you don't know who/what that company is ... but that does not matter)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Dept can not be increased endless.
Regardless if you are a Rep or a Dem.
Depts are payed back with tax money,
If you increase depts indefinitley at some point you would spent all the tax money for reducing depts, or file bankrupt and start over again.
That is a no brainer, for both Reps as Dems ... now pick your stance.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Convenience?
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?!
Please plot the number of storms and cyclones since, say, 2000. Then do a linear fit (since AGW proponents love linear fits). You'll find the trendline is negative. Using this data, then plotting the number of tropical cyclones, I get a linear fit of -0.2436X+19.203 - that is a negative slope. Doing so for the number of tropical storms, and hurricanes results in slopes that are also negative (-0.0918x+16.039 and -0.08846x+8.1373, respectively). That would indicate a declining number of events since 2000, correct?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Combined, Antarctica (~90%) and Greenland (10%) contain ~99% of all freshwater on Earth. Antarctica is increasing its total ice mass. And surprisingly to many, Greenland is as well. Now, the other 1% of freshwater - all those glaciers - may be losing, but they are offset by what is happening on the two main ice sheets. Overall, the world seems to be accumulating ice in spite of localized losses, meaning the global climate is towards ice accumulation whilst local weather may be towards ice loss.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I've read through it, can you point out where the units of energy per mole are indicated? It's showing absorption bands related to frequency, and notes that the modes are vibrational or translational. But you can't calculate energy deposition with them, just that there will be absorption.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Wait, so gaining more than you're losing is NOT a sign that you have, in fact, a net gain? That is what the the Antarctica article is about. And the one about Greenland is basically the same. We're adding more ice than losing. Or do you believe those articles say otherwise?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
...and you don't have reasons to take from the rich nations to give to the poor.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
This, folks, is what's at the root of all the climate hysteria.
"Those nasty capitalist Western nations are too successful! We must equalize outcomes rather than opportunities!" Same old Leftist tripe that's killed many tens of millions in the 20th century alone. If they actually believed their own data they'd be working on adaptation rather than ridiculous plans to somehow control and majorly modify an entire planet's climate trends.
It's an international wealth-transfer and power-shift scheme meant to weaken Western nations, particularly the US.
Even if the US suddenly disappeared today with all it's pollution/CO2, the difference would only amount to a couple tenths of a degree in average global temperatures 200 years from now.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The US is the second biggest polluter with only 350 mio inhabitants. Why do you think you do not need to contribute? We all have to get CO2 neutral this includes the Chinese. While they do a lot in that direction. The USA does not and the same applies to the EU. They could do much more. Especially Germany.
...
As far as Antarctica, what study shows the mass of snow and ice is not accumulating? it's gaining - not losing. In every single study you'll find that covers the entire continent (not just cherry-picked little areas).
The GRACE satellites beg to differ. They show an average of 125 gigatons per year of ice loss on Antarctica from 2002 to 2016, mostly in West Antarctica. The GRACE satellites measure changes in gravity. As Antarctica loses ice the change in the mass of the ice result in changes in gravity.
Antarctic ice loss 2002-2016
Debt can not be increased beyond all bounds but the current debt is not the highest it's ever been and we managed that just fine. In fact the few times the US national debt was reduced to almost zero it was followed by a bad recession.
These are all aqueous reactions for enhanced removal using an alkaline solution...a method that is well known and considering that you'd need millions of tons of these difficult to procure amines, irrelevant to sequestration.
I'm asking about a linear mass/molar attenuation coefficient that can be used to calculate the energy deposition into a CO2 molecule while in the atmosphere, i.e. a way to see how much heat is retained in the atmosphere by CO2 by absorbing IR energy. I've looked through ENDF, NIST, KAERI and other cross-section and attenuation sites, and I can't find it. It's a critical component of any heat retention calculation, otherwise one would have to assume you have 100% absorption of the energy in those particular wavelengths.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Wait, so gaining more than you're losing is NOT a sign that you have, in fact, a net gain?
Doesn't justify your denialist stance though, does it.
The article said it's part of a trend of gaining ice for the last 10,000 years, but the rate of loss from glaciers is increasing, so the rate of gain is decreasing.
At the current rates, it will go from net gain to net loss in 20-30 years.
It also points out that the net gain means that the other causes of sea level rise are larger than expected.
So you know, global warming is still a thing, no matter how much your politics blind you to that fact.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yep, of you cherry-pick a date range you like, you can indeed create a negative trend. Way to science, bro.
OK, so what valid range should there be? How far back do you want to go, and why do you choose that date?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Wait, so because I pointed out that the original poster was, in fact, wrong about the loss of ice - I am now a denier and blind to facts? Really? Does making sure we're talking about facts make one blind to them? Boy, you can always tell the zealot, eh?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Ah yes, the tidal gauges which I can simply drive to and read myself, with paper logs maintained by a bunch old geezers from my own country going back over a hundred years have been manipulated by the petrol industry ...
Well the original numpty was complaining that he's been hearing these predictions since the 1970s, so that seems like a decent starting point. Go ahead and plot that. Afterwards maybe go back to 1917 and see what the trend has been like over the last 100 years. And after you're done with that, follow the link on that page and have a look at the change in storm intensity over the years.
You know, have a look at as much data as you can, instead of cherry picking just the bits which confirm what you want to believe.
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.
Yes. Rain is going to be sparse if we keep on goofing off. Even long ago, in a desert, you could watch a strange rainfall phenomenon. During a storm the raindrops fell down to a certain height and never touched the ground.. The ground was too warm and dry.
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.
...it doesn't.
We'll see soon enough.
br Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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.
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
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.
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
Unfortunately, some of the right-wing crazies get elected, while left-wing crazies tend not to be.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wait, so because I pointed out that the original poster was, in fact, wrong about the loss of ice - I am now a denier and blind to facts?
Are you really so in denial that you don't realise I can also read your other posts in the thread?
You're a denialist because you're crapping denialist "theories" all over the thread.
And you're blatantly fishing to support your ideology.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Nice nick name :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Do elected left-wing crazies cancel out elected right-wing crazies like adding 10 to -10? Or is it more like matter and anti-matter where shit blows up?
Table-ized A.I.
And yet you have failed to post a single, peer reviewed reference. Who's the zealot, who's fishing to support their ideology? HINT: probably not the guy posting actual, you know, science and research papers and data.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What depresses me about comments like this is the total ignorance of nearly 200 years of science.
Back in the mid 19C some scientists thought CO2 was 'saturated' and more wou!dn't cause more warming, others didn't
By early in the 20C and the understandings of quantum physics we could have known that the 'not saturated' argument was the correct one. But nobody seems to have run the maths and published.
By mid 20C and the advent of high altitude bombers who had to worry about ice forming on their wings, we had the data to know that the 'not saturated' argument was the right one.
60+ years later - so nobody under about 70 can have had an education that didn't know these facts - and people are still posting bullshit.
My father remembers in his school chemistry 'Silicon, an abundant but useless element.' What would you think of someone who still said that as fact today?
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
And yet you have failed to post a single, peer reviewed reference.
Like most delialists, you don't understand science and have a very cargo-cult aproach to it.
A clue: you've failed to specify what you want a peer reviewed reference for!
Since I accused you of crapping denialism all over the thread, I assume you want a peer-reviewed reference for that. That's a pretty stupid thing to ask for.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
Ssshhh. The adults are talking. That's how science works: theory / test / amend. There isn't much disagreement about climate change now unless the people disagreeing are being paid to.
Only boring people are ever bored.
They are only "alarmists" to you because you don't want to pay any attention to their prudent warnings. So you call them names.
Only boring people are ever bored.
some of that is in fact correct, but the points remain, you cant blame one side for X and ignore it when Y does it (or justify it simply because its your side)
you could maybe blame the first year of debt on bush, after that, its been obamas whitehouse.
how much of that debt is due to the joke called obamacare???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Statistically downward trend since 1950 exists in hurricane landfalls. Again, how much more data do you need to disabuse yourself of your religious fervor?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Elected left-wing and right-wing crazies do tend to cancel each other out, although not quietly. It has to be good for popcorn stocks.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"I am comparing actual data to their dire predictions made 20 years ago"
The dire predictions were made by doom and gloom sayers based on what science was projecting as a worst possible case.
The "most probable outcome" predictions have actually started arriving earlier than expected.
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.
You are mistaken, coward. Read my previous notes.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry