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!
Trump already bought insurance against rising ocean levels for his sea side golf course in Scotland. Then dropped the US out of Paris accord soon after. Guess he wants to get bang in claims for his buck.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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"
Because small-source renewables generate little energy per square meter of device, deploying enough of them to feed the grid means energy sprawl. My Christmas card this year is that cartoon of Santa and his reindeer dangling from a wind turbine.
For a cleaner environment and zero carbon, we could take the opportunity to move from fossil to nuclear while Republicans are still in office. I seeno sign of such an initiative from Trump, though.
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
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
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!
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!
If Yellowstone blows its top, there is not only going to be a lot more dust in the atmosphere to reflect radiation, but a lot less CO2 produced in the USA, where most of the population will be dead.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
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!
What data is there to push the anthropomorphic global climate change concept? Actual real data, not output from models. Because the actual data shows sea level changes incredibly linear for the last ~150 years, the actual warming being a lot less than the models predict, and the modeled sensitivity of climate to CO2 levels being a factor of 2 to 3 too high
There is no data to push an anthropomorphic climate change concept.
Definition of anthropomorphic
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
anthropomorphic deities
stories involving anthropomorphic animals
2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
anthropomorphic supernaturalism
anthropomorphic beliefs about nature
The word you want is anthropogenic.
Definition of anthropogenic
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature
anthropogenic pollutants
Regarding sea level changes being linear for the last ~150 years here is a statistician's analysis of that. It doesn't appear linear to me.
Sea level rise has accelerated