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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.