Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Have Reduced the Forecast of Sea Level Rise Seven Times Due To Melting of the Antarctic (maritimeherald.com)
The destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet may not lead to such a catastrophic rise in the level of the oceans, as previously thought. In a new study, the authors calculated that instead of growing by a meter or more by 2100, a growth of 14-15 cm is likely, writes N + 1. At the same time, the melting of the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is not fully taken into account in modern climate models, as it will lead to even more destabilization of the regional climate. Both studies on this are published in the journal Nature. An anonymous reader shares the report from Maritime Herald: In the first study, Tamzin Edwards from King's College London and her colleagues question this prediction. According to Edwards, who is quoted by the college press service, scientists re-analyzed data on ice loss and ocean level 3 million years ago, 125 thousand years ago and in the last 25 years and estimated the likelihood of rapid destruction of unstable sea areas of Antarctic glaciers, which the authors 2016 was associated with a meter increase in the level of the oceans. The hypothesis of such destruction received the abbreviated name MICI (marine ice cliff instability). They found that MICI does not necessarily explain the dynamics of sea level in the past, and without this the probability that the level will grow by more than 39 centimeters by 2100 is only about 5 percent. Edwards notes that in their model, even if the Antarctic glaciers really will collapse rapidly, the maximum increase in sea level will not exceed half a meter, and the most likely growth will be 14-15 cm. At the same time, scientists cannot completely eliminate the MICI phenomenon: they only talk about that more research is needed in this area.
In the second article, Edwards and Nick Golledge of Queen Victoria University in Wellington and their co-authors write that current climate models do not fully take into account the consequences of the destruction of the ice of Greenland and the Antarctic, which will slow down the Atlantic Ocean and further melt the Antarctic ice due to "locking" of warm water in the Southern Ocean (climatologists call such self-enhancing processes positive feedback processes). In addition, according to the authors of the article, the melting of ice in the warming scenario of 3-4 degrees compared with the middle of the XIX century will lead to a less predictable climate and an increase in the scale of extreme weather events.
In the second article, Edwards and Nick Golledge of Queen Victoria University in Wellington and their co-authors write that current climate models do not fully take into account the consequences of the destruction of the ice of Greenland and the Antarctic, which will slow down the Atlantic Ocean and further melt the Antarctic ice due to "locking" of warm water in the Southern Ocean (climatologists call such self-enhancing processes positive feedback processes). In addition, according to the authors of the article, the melting of ice in the warming scenario of 3-4 degrees compared with the middle of the XIX century will lead to a less predictable climate and an increase in the scale of extreme weather events.
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
Maybe we can get some celebrities together to write a song or something...
With multitudes of those theories and studies predicting wide range of environmental, geological, social, geopolitical etc. consequences of temps rising by an amount that's far from being settled, expressed in probabilities and fractions of centigrade, I can't help but wonder whether all those predictions are really actionable.
It looks more and more like an attempt to enact planned, command economy on planet scale, knowing too well that it is a proven failure on country scale.
Next up....fresh water shortages only taxes can fix!
They got tired of pushing the ice age, then global warming, then climate change.
I guess you have to scale back fresh water melting to prepare for fresh water shortages.
Makes sense.
Jack up the taxes and make another exchange, and maybe a few new movies!
Profit!
"Next up....fresh water shortages only taxes can fix!" - Fresh, clean potable water already costs money to protect, maintain and serve to your home. Are you some kind of Libertarian pseudo-economist retard or something?
There are some things about AGW that are well understood. We know that CO2 absorbs some of the heat in the atmosphere, before it can radiate into space. We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up.
Some things science doesn't know: what are the effects of warming? How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere? How much warming was there in the past? Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Most of that ice is underwater displacing more than the melt volume that will result. Fool.
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
If they publish a study you agree with, you think they must be right. If they publish a study you disagree with, they must be paid off. Might want to fix your cognitive biases.
Hint: Try being more skeptical of stuff that you agree with than stuff you disagree with.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
Voldemort? Maybe we should call Harry Potter!
Those things you listed aren't climate change. They are pollution, which nobody is in favor of or disputes.
You conflate the two on purpose, of course.
Edwards notes that in their model, even if the Antarctic glaciers really will collapse rapidly, the maximum increase in sea level will not exceed half a meter, and the most likely growth will be 14-15 cm.
"in their model"
What ever happened to the notion of all models being wrong?
By scaring people with unfounded horror, you are then able to further your own radical beliefs. Usually these beliefs would coincide with some kind of racial supremacy so even if the ice caps are melting, we're f**ked either way.
Global warming caused the reduction in forecasts, you see.
https://www.nature.com/nature/...
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Losing my religion
"The enormous cognitive dissonance they possess presents itself in the selling of millions of gallons of water to Nestle" - So you advocate for planned central economics instead of the free market, is that it? You're advocating Communism?
I wholeheartedly agree that Nestle should not be able to buy up limited public freshwater and sell it at a premium. I agree. Show me a legal way to shut that down, show California's governor how to accomplish that regulatory objective.
Put your money where your rhetoric is. What exactly would you have CA do about that? Ban industrial water use? Ban for-profit water use? Ban bottling water? What exactly?
Your nonsense complaint is just a red herring from the actual point, that fresh water is extremely limited at under 1/16th of 1% of all water, and warming exacerbates that problem locally all over the world.
But sure, let's talk about Hillary's emails right troll Republicans lol?
The article that you quote was posted by a marketing manager. It looks to me as if he paraphrased a report he didn't understand. The article was from "The Maritime Herald", which is a on-line magazine mainly about shipping. The origin of the article is stated to be "Maritime News of Russia".
This article looks less reliable than most that are published here, and that's not any kind of praise.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You know you're still a traitor-supporting faggot, right? We're going to HANG you from your faggot neck, not jail you lol. Where'd you get that idea? ROPE, not bars lol.
Yeah like the ozone layer just healed itself right? Predictions schmedictions. What's science but a series of really good guesses, amirite Republican morons?
Yeah like the ozone layer just healed itself right? Predictions schmedictions. What's science but a series of really good guesses, amirite Republican morons?
This study does NOT say that that the total sea level will rise only 14cm. It's talking about the contribution of one single source of sea level rise: Antarctic Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI).
What happened was in 2016 a widely reported paper suggested that the IPCC's (rather gloomy) 2013 sea level projections needed to be revised upward by about 65-114 cm in the worst case because it didn't take MICI into account. Dr. Edward's paper suggests that MICI contribution would be closer to 45cm in the worst case, and only about 14cm in the most likely case. However this is still on top of the 52-98cm predicted by IPCC, most of which is due to highly predictable thermal expansion and not the chaotic behavior of ice systems.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It is already not a science. What is climate? It is the average of weather over a defined period (usually 30 years). The key word is "average". Which should immediately tell you that the proper name for "Climate Science" is really "Weather Statistics".
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case
Yeah, this is one is well supported by experiment. See this for a demonstration. There are equations and references here.
Some scientists doubt that there will be a crisis because of AGW, but none doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere produces a warming effect.
I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They didn't take into account the possible breakup of Antarctic marine ice cliffs. It's not so simple as "it gets so warm that the ice in Antarctica melts"; we're talking about 2-4 degrees C on average, which is not enough to cause the ice there to melt. We're dealing with the consequences of a 2016 paper suggested that ice around the periphery of Antarctica could destablize. If those ice cliffs destablizied that would unlock ice stuck behind them, allow that ice to flow into the sea.
It's a dynamic process that involves the mechanical migration of still-perfectly-frozen ice from the land. Seriously, if we were talking about all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland actually melting, we'd be screwed on a scale nobody is suggesting likely. Far worse than the additional meter we were worried about on top of the meter we're almost certain to get.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
the melting of the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is not fully taken into account in modern climate models
Emphasis mine. Of course they took Antarctica and Greenland into account. And even that is an extreme simplification of what's actually discussed in the paper.
My understanding is:
- Looking at what happened in the past eras, they noticed a rapid raise in sea level following the melting of polar ice
- Current day observation and historical data don't match, sea levels should rise faster than what is currently happening
- Using the marine ice cliff instability hypothesis, a catastrophic event, they managed to match the historical data
- It turns out that the marine ice cliff instability hypothesis doesn't match current observations, and therefore, a catastrophe is unlikely
- The new suggested explantation is that Greenland and Antarctica ice melting will accelerate because of something else (trapped warm water according to TFS)
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case.
You mean other than over a century of repeatable lab experiments? And basically our entire understanding of electromagnetism?
Ezekiel 23:20
I can sum their article up in one word:
BULL$#1T
The ozone layer literally did just heal itself, you absolute fucking moron. It was a perfect example of leftist fear mongering over a completely normal and natural occurrence in order to push Maoist Communism cloaked in the dead flesh of environmentalism. ... Exactly like what you and your ilk are doing now with The New Green Deal.
"Pay off my college debt and give me a guaranteed government paycheck, or the waves will rise up, and the fires will burn, and hurricanes and earthquakes and I'm a brainwashed, sniveling faggot!"
Putin. Try to call Putin - judging by mass hysteria surrounding few posts in social media in 2016 I would think that if he waves his dick in the right direction he may achieve anything icluding protecting us all from man made global warming. Come to think of it maybe man made global warming was meant to be a situation in which Putin by waving his dick caused massive increase in surface temperature on earth - him stopping that as a protection measure may be just the right thing to do to save us all! So call Vowa - if the line is busy try to call later but do call!
Get out of your basements, you hopeless conspiracy nuts! Go out and look at the world. You are lowering the average IQ by posting here.
Warming things up also puts a greater amount of H2O in the atmosphere. The world is mostly ocean. Oceans evaporate, which is why we have clouds. But not all H2O condenses as clouds. H2O has a much greater "greenhouse" effect than CO2.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Republican Maine disagrees with you, lying faggot of no value or consequence. Sorry! https://www.nrcm.org/projects/climate/global-warming-air-pollution/
You don't know anything real, you're just a Fox News retard who will be culled soon enough.
The ozone layer grows and shrinks every year with Antarctic temperature. I remember in the early 1980's when the "hole" was discovered and everyone panicked. Now it seems it's a natural phenomenon. The colder it gets in Antarctica, the bigger the hole.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Blah blah, not enough water in California... There never has been.
I live in a place with plenty of water. Too much water.
Maybe Californians shouldn't be trying to live in a desert. (And then all the dumbasses try to claim it isn't a desert, it's just having a 200+ year long drought)
An alarmist climate scientific paper turns out to be... nothing but alarmist claptrap. Well, I never.
Exactly, let's blather faggot shit about California like a Fox News might do instead of talking about the 97-99% of climate researchers worldwide who agree that pollutants and insulating exhausts are harming our planet inexorably, right now.
You're a fucking faggot propaganda hoe. I would literally pay to have you fucked into 4 equal pieces, if you weren't one of hundreds of thousands of similar piles of shit worldwide. The economics of that would be beyond my means.
But certainly not the act itself, you fucking treasonous lying faggot bitch I would cut your head off with my cock to give you the Libertarian apologist sendoff you TRULY deserve.
"You can't prove the hole is caused by CFC's either." - You could be the GOP nominee with such contradictions of reality, provided of course you also enjoy sucking Russian cock in your free time...
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp
The ozone layer was literally never there all the time. The hole was coming and going periodically. The scientists doctored their presentation of the data to convince the policy makers by showing only the data pertaining to the hole showing up.
Now that we have a veritable global cooling going on, it is time to start doing real science. The Earth is definitely changing; would be good to know why.
Right now so called climate change science is yeah, cute Alexandria Ocasia somebody in a makeup looking like a twin of Huma Abedin in a makeup and trying to tax the Mankind for the beneift of certain business interests. It's frankly scary.
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case
Yeah, this is one is well supported by experiment. See this for a demonstration. There are equations and references here. Some scientists doubt that there will be a crisis because of AGW, but none doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere produces a warming effect. I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to.
It's not ignorance, so much as an unshakable belief set. There are many very intelligent folks on both sides of the Climate Change argument.
Sadly, political beliefs skewer scientific evidence, because it is one of the pillars in the us vs. them political landscape our democracy has devolved into.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Your language shows how distant you are to any kind of science.
Which is by the way not the sort of leftists Masonic religion you imagine it is.
Well all be under water by 2013!!!
None of the intelligent ones doubt that CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree. Or if there is an intelligent person who doubts it, I would like to meet them.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp You could be the GOP nominee with such contradictions of reality, provided of course you also enjoy sucking Russian cock in your free time...
None of the intelligent ones doubt that CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree. Or if there is an intelligent person who doubts it, I would like to meet them.
CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere in the same way insulation doesn't warm your house.
I'm sure most intelligent, educated people recognize that.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals found mainly in spray aerosols heavily used by industrialized nations for much of the past 50 years, are the primary culprits in ozone layer breakdown. When CFCs reach the upper atmosphere, they are exposed to ultraviolet rays, which causes them to break down into substances that include chlorine. The chlorine reacts with the oxygen atoms in ozone and rips apart the ozone molecule.
One atom of chlorine can destroy more than a hundred thousand ozone molecules, according to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The ozone layer above the Antarctic has been particularly impacted by pollution since the mid-1980s. This region’s low temperatures speed up the conversion of CFCs to chlorine. In the southern spring and summer, when the sun shines for long periods of the day, chlorine reacts with ultraviolet rays, destroying ozone on a massive scale, up to 65 percent. This is what some people erroneously refer to as the "ozone hole." In other regions, the ozone layer has deteriorated by about 20 percent.
About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. Scientists had estimated it would take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels. In fact, in November 2018, the UN released a report saying that, based on the latest science, the ozone layer is on track to be fully healed within 50 years.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals found mainly in spray aerosols heavily used by industrialized nations for much of the past 50 years, are the primary culprits in ozone layer breakdown. When CFCs reach the upper atmosphere, they are exposed to ultraviolet rays, which causes them to break down into substances that include chlorine. The chlorine reacts with the oxygen atoms in ozone and rips apart the ozone molecule.
One atom of chlorine can destroy more than a hundred thousand ozone molecules, according to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The ozone layer above the Antarctic has been particularly impacted by pollution since the mid-1980s. This region’s low temperatures speed up the conversion of CFCs to chlorine. In the southern spring and summer, when the sun shines for long periods of the day, chlorine reacts with ultraviolet rays, destroying ozone on a massive scale, up to 65 percent. This is what some people erroneously refer to as the "ozone hole." In other regions, the ozone layer has deteriorated by about 20 percent.
About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. Scientists had estimated it would take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels. In fact, in November 2018, the UN released a report saying that, based on the latest science, the ozone layer is on track to be fully healed within 50 years.
That's true, warmer air is moister which traps more heat, which is a positive feedback. But it can also result in more cloud formation, increasing albedo and reflecting more heat, which is a negative feedback. Yet clouds can reflect heat back down again too, and the amount varies with altitude.
There's a lot we don't know about cloud formation under those conditions, so a lot of uncertainty as to degree. Current thinking is that net feedback is somewhat positive. Bottom line: It's complicated.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
You wouldn't think so, but I have an extremely intelligent brother-in-law with whom I argue politics at every Thanksgiving and Christmas, typically spoiling the holiday, at least a little, for the rest of the family members.
This guy built a water well drilling unit with scrap parts he had laying around the farm. He builds his own devices to pull poly pipe thru steel pipe in a relining process for which he is able to charge oilfield companies and municipalities $millions.
More than that, he gets my jokes & references... even the obscure ones. If the World goes to shit, I am prepping with this guy.
But. If Fox said something that morning, arguing to the contrary is like pulling on Superman's Cape.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
One of the hardest elements to predict is the pace of ice-sheet melting. This should be the message here.
It will probably be tolerable in my lifetime, but the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres. And it is melting, it is just a question of how fast.
Yep, there's crackpot papers on both sides.
In the middle though? A whole bunch of sensible people with real data.
No sig today...
Even if you couldn't quantify the number of zealots on both sides of the belief set, as a reasonable person, you'd have to stipulate they exist... blaming one side (or the other) for all the human failures that exist in the World is a recipe for well done, as opposed to medium rare (which is really well done), partisanship.
The powers that be have successfully divided the populace with the minimum of two policy positions.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
These "scientists" have struck out so many times they are now calling it Climate Change rather than Global Warming. With global warming the temperature of the earth has to rise in order for you to be correct. By calling it climate change the temperature can go up or down and you can say...ha! told you so.
The global temperature rises, this cause the climate to change, hotter and colder, on different parts of the planet.
Climate has been changing since the beginning of time.
Quick, tell the climate scientists, I'm sure they were completely unaware of that and not a single one of them have factored this into their equations and models. Of course climate has always been changing, what's worrying the experts is the rate of change and what's driving that rate.
But I'm sure you must have been told all this already, just as I'm sure you'll continue to ignore it the next time a story about climate change is posted.
You have no science behind your doubts, lying idiot.
Of course the ultra left loves AGW. Because all the so called solutions are Marxist redistribution of wealth and absolute government control of all aspects of life.
If the solutions involved lower taxes and reducing the number of illegal aliens and cleaning up voter rosters then the ultra left would be -violently- opposed to AGW. Think antifa.
Jesus Christ are you really this dumb?
Except you have no science behind your doubts, lying idiot. You're just a propagandist, not a science-anything.
They don't care. Just like he said... no one from the left has doubted what is generally accepted. You are not allowed to doubt anything that has been generally accepted. I wonder if they remember reading in history class that it was generally accepted that the earth was flat once upon a time.
This is what makes them a flipping cult. Calling out anyone not accepting the "generally accepted" conclusion has being ignorant or wrong. These folks are the exact same assholes that keep holding science back. Many like them held back many of the great scientific minds throughout the ages, and they don't even care, in fact they derive a sense of glee at preventing truth because they think they already have all the truth they need to live.
The people that treat the "deniers" poorly are nothing but hand fed armchair pseudo scientists, treating evidence like it is the same as proof. They take evidence like it is gospel on it's face and if someone says otherwise... then they are just a bunch of morons.
Solar power is a marxist redistribution of wealth? Maybe you're just too stupid to have a clue what words mean, how science works, etc?
Get slightly educated, lying republican faggots. It'll be easier to pretend you're scientists when you have the slightest clue what your faggot traitor asses are blathering about. Not before.
Gees, Glaciers and ice sheets tend to float on water in the Antarctic, for the most part the ice floating on water will not raise the water levels as the levels wont change.
More concerning is Greenland. When it melts it will cause the levels to raise as it is on land, not on water.
I find it very puzzling that civilization can't seem to break out of the false dichotomy in the global warming 'debate'.
The argument that nothing, nor nothing remarkable, is happening with climate is absurd. Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
At the other extreme is a long chain of increasingly dubious inferences, from definite known science, to predictions of varying degrees of certainty, to highly speculative government interventions, finally ending with a theoretically feasible but politically impossible taxation and regulatory solution that seems suspiciously unimaginative and bureaucratic. So the specific solutions proposed are rightly met with skepticism.
We need some creative ideas for actions to take besides nothing and the impractical. There have to be more options.
Let me write it again.
"Doubt is the enemy of Faith, it is NOT the enemy of science."
You have to be a pretty dim individual to ask for scientific proof of doubt. The propagandist is you an every other "cultist AGW" crackpot out where without a single accurate "prediction". There has always been a doomsday crowd running around saying the sky is falling, the earth is cooling, the earth is warming, the earth is climate changing! Every little thing that goes bad is blamed on AGW now as though quakes, extinctions, hurricanes, tornado's and other disasters have not be happening all along. We have a tiny slice of "semi-accurately" recorded history... it's pretty easy to break records and take things out of context.
My science so far says that the earth has not warmed as predicted by 2019. In fact, we are in the bottom 10% of the prediction set. My science says that we have had the coldest winters in a generation in North America, breaking record cold 4 years in a row. We have sun spot activity pointing to another 15 years of cold, and we still havenâ(TM)t found that mysterious ocean heat sink.
Now, sea level raises of 10 cm! 4 inches! Letâ(TM)s upend our entire society!
Thatâ(TM)s what I have the problem with, politically motivated totalitarians who have latched on to environmentalism as a way to control every aspect of the public. And when confronted with the bad science, like the âoehockey stickâ re-evaluation of historical temperatures to make the model work, the movement falls back on dogma and name calling. Because if the movement actually questioned WHY they are being told to believe AGW, they might realize that they are giving up a ton of liberty for nothing.
Sounds like you're the idiot for insisting Fox must be wrong solely because Fox man bad.
Except that the hole still was growing. Every couple of years it set new size records. Now that most of ozone-destroying chemicals are phased out, the growth has stopped and even reversed a bit.
Whist I'm not a denier, the scientific community has repeatedly cried wolf, with regard to huge sea level changes.
They ought to treat it like hurricane tracks, instead of trying to predict a hugely complex system.
Or. Maybe they are doing that, and the press pours gas on the fire.
"You mean other than over a century of repeatable lab experiments?"
This is why you are ignorant. How many years did it take them to first break the sound barrier? How many people "just like you" that said it was "scientifically" not possible to travel faster than the speed of sound?
"And basically our entire understanding of electromagnetism?"
Which is limited, there is still a ton of research into magnetism happening... are you stupid enough to think we already know everything there is to know about electromagnetism? People like you are going to cause a war over your "perceived" delusions... in fact there are already people calling for the murder or incarceration of "deniers".
I want proof, and that is YOUR SIDE's responsibility to provide it. The current evidence presented is NOT PROOF!
The current rise in temperature around the world is also adequately explained by our constant increase in energy production and consumption. A lot of science back in the day though they had the final solutions as well, though it turns out much of it was wrong now... after we went back and revisited the "evidence"
Only a cultist asks for me to prove AGW wrong, especially when the AGW cultists have not proven that AGW as we claim to understand it is correct. How is it that you cannot understand that when you accept this stuff on faith that you are not different that the rest of the religions looking to rule the world with their version of "the truth".
Get it while it's still cheap. Once L.A. is underwater it'll be too late! Call 702-555-1212 for more info.
Wilful ignorance is still ignorance.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
We were all told that the large majority of the sea level rise would be ice sheets melting. Oops!!
And it turns out they cannot even be sure of the ice shelves collapsing...
Ans who has factored in the greater weight of water causing the ocean floor to be compressed a bit further than it is already? Even a rice of a few inches is a massive pressure increase on the ocean floor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think a lot of intelligence comes from the "climate change is a hoax" side. That side relies on politics and religion to drive what they think. Obviously climate change can't be real, because the Bible says so, or it can't be real because it will mean the free market isn't the best solution to all problems, or it can't be real because I saw a Youtube video that said it wasn't.
Granted, there are those who believe in climate change who have not done the science either and are just parroting what their peer group says. I would however give them more credence for at least defaulting to what the majority of scientists think is likely as opposed to defaulting to what a few conspiracy theory politicians think.
One can also use empirical evidence to note that Fox is basing its existence on pushing editorialized news rather than unbiased news. Sure other stations are biased but they strive to make sure the bias is in the editorials.
It's not Fox I worry about though, it's the really extremist sites the push conspiracy theories or click bait viewpoints. World News Daily, Brietbart, Infowars. Even scarier is when the president seems to listen more to those sites than to his advisors.
Wow that was pathetic even by the standards of Americas left
We don't need to know *everything* about electromagnetism to understand that absoption spectra exist and what they do to physical systems. So, no, the nature of magnetism is irrelevant for this.
Ezekiel 23:20
The current rise in temperature around the world is also adequately explained by our constant increase in energy production and consumption.
Anyone capable of producing such bullshit can't be possibly taken seriously. Anyone reasonable can compare ten terawatts with a hundred thousand terawatts and conclude that the additional direct heating caused by the former is ridiculously tiny.
Ezekiel 23:20
I wonder if they remember reading in history class that it was generally accepted that the earth was flat once upon a time.
Not only have we known that the Earth is round since the times of Ancient Greece, but we've had a reliable method for estimating its diameter since that time as well. Which makes me wonder what kind of weird history you were taught...
Ezekiel 23:20
They are stupid when they don't look at the evidence, or dismiss evidence. I went to a creationist museum once, a lot of stupidity there, not ignorance. Start with the conclusion they want then shuffle the evidence around to fit it, then shove a whole lotta proselytizing in with it. (So not only do they believe in creationism, but a form very specific to a literalist Christian bible reading rather than an Aztec, Nordic, or Zoroastrian view of creation.)
With an intelligent person you can have a debate. Now some people may seem quite smart in some areas, but if they are so closed minded that they can't have a proper discussion in some area then they are not intelligent in that area and most likely intentionally so.
Why would you label someone unable to change position when confronted with evidence as "extremely intelligent"? That sounds like contraindication for intelligence.
Ezekiel 23:20
There's a difference between scientists theorizing about anthropomorphic climate change and politicians devising a cap-and-trade system. If cap-and-trade seems stupid then do not blame the scientists for this. However if you trust the scientists then there should be *some* reasonable political proposal put forward other than "it's a hoax!"
It didn't heal itself while we watched and sat back doing nothing. It healed itself after we restricted use of a large number of ozone depleting chemicals.
It's like Y2K, it didn't happen as predicted not because it was a hoax but because we did something about it. Yet it is not hard to find people who think Y2K was just a hoax to make money.
Just look at where sea levels were the last time atmospheric CO2 was at this level and the system reached equilibrium. The oilies latest tactic is to focus the public on *the rate* of reaching equilibrium by creating FUD. You have been played, I think Slashdotters are easier tricked
Hey look mom, the little monkey is smearing the shit on itself again. Camouflage? He looks like he's getting ready to throw another load... better end our discussion and pay small attention to the poor little thing instead...
One of the hardest elements to predict is the pace of ice-sheet melting. This should be the message here.
Now you're trying to frame the message the way you want it. That may play elsewhere, but I can read data.
Show me the error bars or GTFO, 'cause you ain't doing science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/nasa-noaa-report-2018-was-earths-fourth-hottest-year-on-record-5575631/
Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
It's worth mentioning that strictly speaking, there is uncertainty, but for some of these things it's very very very small.
We need some creative ideas for actions to take besides nothing and the impractical. There have to be more options.
Maybe the right approach is to teach people to look at the error bars. That way they can start to get the concept that some things are very certain, and other things are rather uncertain.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Scientists are just people and as such, are prone to lying, fabricating and misunderstanding just like everyone else. They do not reside on pedestals.
To keep on topic, we know for a fact that climate scientists worked to suppress dissenters views, we have copies of their email exchanges. Polar bears dying off? Fabricated by conflating colonies with species. Hockey stick? Fabricated and obfuscated by not sharing the code. Turns out it's a red noise graph.
Nobody, scientists included, should be looked upon as completely trustworthy.
Yes, the demonstration provides evidence that "carbon" will hold heat.
Good job, you can learn.
Now you need to learn to express yourself concisely. That's a wall of text you wrote, and I'm not sure what you are saying.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Easy boy, you seem to be mistaking me for someone else. I did not make the claims you wish to attack.
I sense a lot of anger in this one.
Well, show him this video. There's also a video from mythbusters.
If someone is smart and coming to such bad conclusions, it's because they are missing data. Just need to present it to him in a way he can understand it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This should be the message here.
That's what you said man. Look at the data, not the message.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Intelligence aside, the ability to receive and process evidence contrary to one's belief set is rarer than hen's teeth.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
So what do you think? I'm skimmed your recent comments and not found it.
Are you denying AGW?
Climate modelling is hard, when there are so many feedback mechanisms, positive and negative.
But I've already seen long-term rainfall decline dramatically here, due to climate shift. We are now dependent on desalination for our water supply. So maybe that makes us a little more open minded to the risks.
Changes are not being directly observed. They are taken from models that are not evidence.
But I've already seen long-term rainfall decline dramatically here, due to climate shift
Oh yeah? The two degrees difference in temperature changed your rainfall? Where is that? It sounds interesting, let's dig deeper into the data, if you have some.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Especially humans who think they are smart: scientists, doctors, etc.
the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres.
About 3.2 meters. That's the real figure.
Over-embellishment via ignorance, dramatic effect, whatever; easily verified wrong figures spoken as fact is the soil which science denial grows from.
and the ice sheet melts are going to be an iceberg in the ocean by comparison.
Creationists and anti-Climate Changers are intelligent, however they have an under developed capacity for reasoning, as a consequence are poor critical thinkers.
Not saying it did. I just saw you standing over the dead body with a gun. I did not see you shoot.
Can't prove it, but I'm going to be careful.
Would you change your position if confronted with evidence from Fox News?
Claimed evidence is insufficient. One must trust the source too.
the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres.
About 3.2 meters. That's the real figure.
Why are ACs so stupid? The 7m is a simple theoretical number, from dividing the volume of Greenland's ice by the area of the oceans. Hardly controversial.
It is not a forecast.
It's reasonably well understood because in essence it's just basic thermodynamics. You add energy to a weather system and there's some things could happen
1) thermal: ocean warm up
2) thermal: atmosphere warms up
3) weather and tidal behaviour gets more kinetic.
4) some combination of the above
4 is the correct answer , of course , the question in the air is how that combination plays out. Will we get the 4+ Celsius rise (4 is optimistic but political pressures have tended to force scientists to understate risks) or do we get the hurricanes, flooding , polar vortexes and the like. That's where the bulk of the research is going
Those questions are the real focus of research. Calculating Co2 is largely rudimentary math although the clathrate problem exasperates uncertainty for the worse. Once we know what that energy contribution is likely to be the next stage is the harder part. Working out if we melt, drown or both
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
There's a problem at the other end of the spectrum of exaggerating or grabbing on the less likely scenarios to claim things are going to be worse then is likely. Claims that all the ice will permanently be gone soon or that an extreme event is proof.
There are error bars in the best models and the good models do have variation and the smart thing is to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, but extreme claims in either direction is unproductive and can be counter-productive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
He said it right there, the proof that the guy is highly intelligent is that he gets paid millions of dollars by an oil company.
It's reasonably well understood because in essence it's just basic thermodynamics. You add energy to a weather system and there's some things could happen
1) thermal: ocean warm up
2) thermal: atmosphere warms up
3) weather and tidal behaviour gets more kinetic.
4) some combination of the above
This is a reasonable hypothesis. How would you test that hypothesis? What would you do?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I can haz cargo? I can haz cheeseburder cargo?
What if I wave my hands, can I be a sciencer?
Nobody asks for proof of doubts, they ask for reasons in order to find out if the doubts are reasoned and if enough information is provided they might even start to consider if the doubts are reasonable.
You don't seem to actually have doubts at all, BTW. You seem to have Faith that the result of the experiment is unknown. Even though you could learn to do the experiment at home, yourself. You have access to the results, there is no cause for either Faith or Doubt. If you don't know the answer, it is because you haven't looked into it, not because you did the experiment and the result was unclear.
Some medieval people may well have read accounts of the ancient Greek philosophers.
Most medieval people hadn't read anything.
So it's quite possible that many people did believe the world was flat, and many more were too busy with trivialities like trying not to starve to give the matter much thought.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My god, that's the most idiotic thing I've read all day. And it is a weekend for Pete's sake.
I thought it was gonna be the Church Lady from SNL.
Have your aternate theory published in a peer review journal. Until then, it is not even toilet paper, and I will stick to the guys actually having an education beyond high scool.
Car analogy: If you go 200 km/h in a city and the tire bursts, we cannot accurately predict which of you bones will break or how many of them will break. But I'm pretty sure, it is going to hurt a lot. Better slow down.
That's a bad analogy because we don't know if it will hurt a lot. The bad effects of global warming are largely hypothetical still.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Get Proof! Simple!
You need to read up on science and how it works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This is actually dangerous statement perpetuating problem
Most people are not climatologists..so they cannot have enough knowledge and insight that would allow them to question status quo and so called facts and predict "unpredictable"
So you ask them to inflate their ego by watching socially trusted informational videos and support the underlying agenda without true understanding... That is what got us here in the first place
Times of renaissance men are - I am afraid - over
And given more narrowing field of each scientist...noone has that global understanding anymore...perhaps machines (but who programs them? )
Displacing _more_ than the melt volume that will result? How? Through magic?
the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres.
About 3.2 meters. That's the real figure.
Why are ACs so stupid? The 7m is a simple theoretical number, from dividing the volume of Greenland's ice by the area of the oceans. Hardly controversial.
It is not a forecast.
Ice has a lower density than water, and salt water has an even higher density.
Work bio at MMWD
I want proof, and that is YOUR SIDE's responsibility to provide it.
There's proof a plenty based in theory as well as scientific experimentation at various scales, as well modelling of the effect you find questionable, as well as comparing those models to past events to validate them.
You don't want proof. You want to wallow in your own ignorance.
I'm no scientist, but even I can see a basic flaw in the "proof" of that video. Heat is infrared light. Light can be scattered. Suppose the CO2 wasn't absorbing the candle heat but occluding it by meerly scattering the light like a bunch of tiny mirrored particles. The video doesn't prove anything about CO2's heat absorbing qualities, but it certainly pretends to.
Ice has a lower density than water, and salt water has an even higher density.
About 10% total.
2.9 million cubic km of ice, so 2.6 million of water. Divided by the area of oceans 360 million square kilometres (plus a small amount for inundated areas)
and you get 7.2 metres. Who knows how you get 3.2m? Assuming a flat earth?
Nobody is saying the whole thing will melt soon, but it gives scale to the possibilities.
Antarctica has nearly ten times the ice. So even 1% of that melting would have severe costs.
Oh, that's right, because you LIKE the answer it seems to be saying.
But go and read the article.You'll find it isn't a science paper or science journal and doesn't say what the summary says at all.
Oddly though BaauHD gets crap from you for posting too much AGW "alarmism", now he DOES get it wrong, but in a way you like, suddenly, no problem with Beau posting about AGW....
And then when you get the same answer, that STiLL doesn't mean anything because science, according to your pinheaded brain insists that science is ONLY replication.
So go ahead and replicate Archimedes.
Only fucking morons who hate science misunderstand science enough to make the shitheaded claim you just did.
No, just because you are ridiculed for your reasonless refusal to accept reality doesn't mean the left does not allow you to doubt what is generally accepted.
It's "generally accepted" that socialism (as in medicare for all) is not workable to the USA. But many in the left in the USA doubt that and the only ones screaming YOU CANNOT DOUBT THIS!!! is you rightwing nutjobs.
Most of the climate scientists called "alarmist" by denier morons are in the middle.
Where have YOU been told the middle is? Just where you are, in your doubt? Wow, who would have thought you'd accept being told you're in the middle for doubting climate scientists and the IPCC, just like the rightwing thinktanks and denial industry want you to believe...
salt water has an even higher density
That's because it's got more than water in it. Add more water, you dilute the oceans, you reduce the density.
Of course, there's also the water that isn't in the oceans. Heavily increased rainfall in parts of the world means more water hitting land, so it's possible some of Greenland's ice cap will head that way.
It's cause elementary level still pushes the notion that Columbus believed the world was round and others scoffed at him when the reality was they all agreed the world was round, Columbus just thought it was much smaller than everyone else (and he was wrong, if it hadn't been for stumbling on the New World he'd have died at sea).
Perhaps, but the modern equivalent would be pointing to AGW denialists or anti-vaxxers or Apollo hoaxers and concluding that 21st century people were bad at science. I'm not sure that's how such general statements work.
Ezekiel 23:20
Forgive my foolishness but how is the ice on Greenland and Antarctica managing to be underwater? I mean, technically most of it is under frozen water but that doesn't then explain the displacement to which you refer.
Because that is propably exactly what it does by itself, this climate in general. Just because we happen to be in that goldilocks zone distance from our sun.
This is the same shit we get from anti-vaxxers. These are normally intelligent, higher educated people yet they hold on to absolutely insane beliefs like grim death. These people tend to be religious as well.
Tony Heller shows 61% fake data from so-called climate scientists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgk3xFHvWLE
It's literally in your New Green Deal, dipshit.
"In order to save the environment, we have to raise taxes over 70%, pay for everyone's college debt, and provide a salary to those unwilling to work."
You don't give a shit about the environment. Your first and last goal is to control people, implement communism, then get killed by Comrade Jamal because you are a rich, white, elitist fag.
"We're not dead from global warming now because we banned plastic straws and paid reparations to black people!"
-You, from a pile of rubble in the dystopian leftist hellscape, circa 2033.
(Just kidding. You're going to kill yourself in November 2020)
There are many very intelligent folks on both sides of the Climate Change argument.
There really aren't.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. There's aproximately zero controversy on cause of the current warming amongst very intelligent folks.
Except that globally the use of aerosols went up during that time period, not down... But sure, whatever you need to tell yourself to not feel like a fucking dupe.
I've already had 4 children. I'm the future.
Meanwhile, you're taking hormone pills, stocking your bathroom with tampons, and working with this great doctor in Thailand who can do your transition surgery on the cheap!
CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere in the same way insulation doesn't warm your house.
Sunlight comes through the CO2 in the atmosphere, because CO2 is transparent to visible light, which is where sunlight's greatest energy spectral density is. CO2 then blocks its escape because CO2 is opaque in large sections on the IR spectrum, where earth's radiation has greatest energy spectral density.
Insulation in your house doesn't come with an energy imbalance.
Unless you live in a glasshouse, I suppose.
Good point.
Probably there are no informed people on one side of the climate debate is a more robust claim than intelligent people.
Even clever people can culture a deep ignorance if motivated to do so.
Suppose the CO2 wasn't absorbing the candle heat but occluding it by meerly scattering the light like a bunch of tiny mirrored particles.
Then the heat radiated by the earth would still be slowed reaching space by CO2, which will reflect it around the atmosphere like a pinball instead of making it directly to space.
In fact there's not a lot of difference between the two, as a warm gas will radiate heat itself.
Calling a mis-memory, that is later corrected on the record, a lie is abusive. A lie should require intent to deceive. I sometimes forget details and need to review my notes to verify a something. Especially when the question involves dates and times.
Saying that they all lied is sort of BS. If asked an open ended question like "what was discussed at a meeting 6 months ago", relaying the topics you remember and leaving out those you don't is not lying.
People's memories are not digital recorders.
The bad effects of global warming are largely hypothetical still.
Exactly. We should definitely wait until the bad effects are actual and irreversible before we do anything.
dude, if you think cnn msnbc npr et al are unbiased, do i have 100 acres of prime land in the everglades to sell you for a very advantageous price!
> How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere?
Are we talking matter spontaneously generated out of nowhere, or are we talking energy spontaneously generated out of nowhere?
Fan5 is very emotionally invested in his luke-warmism. You can't reason someone out of an opinion they never reasoned themselves into. The cherry on top is his scientism, which is pretty standard for denialists - anyone who hurts their feefees must be held to an unreasonable standard of proof that they have no interest in holding themselves too. Kinda reminds me of that famous authoritarian quote "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law!" No surprise that denalists & authoritarians are modern bedmates. Oh, I forgot to put a trigger warning on this post for Fan5.
So the catastrophic destruction we were promised continues to be downgraded even as it becomes obvious 'enough' of the first-world population targeted for fleecing by the "climate chaos" are awake to the scam.
Seems to me some of the scientific community are tired of pushing the so-called consensus and are consciously walking back the lie to avoid being completely discredited.
People's point is the left believes TOO much (ala 1 meter versus 20 cm). And if you don't think the left has nutters, check out the antivax crowd. A lot of very left wing hippies.
There is definitely fundamentalism and group think on both sides. If you don't think that, you're on one of the sides.
Scientists predict temperatures to rise X % a year based on current models
Scientists predict sea levels to rise > 1 meter in Z years based on current models
The scientists' models extrapolate out a number of years...
I'll just extrapolate out the rate of reduction from 1 meter sea level rise to 15 cm and go on a few more years to predict that the sea level rise will be 1.5cm (90% lower) than predicted....and then another few years predict it will be 0.15 cm) .....
Less hope that more science research funding in this area will yield anything more than healthy retirement fund accounts for climate change scientists.
Much rather spend the research money on building a wind farm somewhere to offset carbon emissions elsewhere.....
Given that content of CO2 in atmosphere is so tiny, does it really do any perceptible greenhouse effect?
Right now we are in a solar minimum and that feels man, that is the real effect.
Hahaha that's exactly the faulty 2018 report that which predicted the warmest winter on record in 2019 . Because this is El Nigno Year. This makes corrupt US climatologists a laughing stock now.
Yet we have the coldest winter ever. I hope Alexandria Ocasia occasionally deprived US liberals of their cars so they would walk to their Walmarts a couple of miles and back, weekly.
A fucking third grade science experiment will show you that adding CO2 to a system will increase warming from sunlight, dumbass.
Indeed. That's why misremembering isn't a crime. Knowingly and willfully making a false statement- i.e, lying- is, and that's what all of those people pled guilty to.
See 18 USC 1001 and others
Who cares what he's "supposed" to be looking at? Are you saying that somehow justifies a bunch of Trump associates lying to the FBI?
"Oh, I only lied to you about a ton of shit because you were investigating me for a murder I didn't commit. Otherwise I'd have been honest about all the drug deals, especially if you had been investigating me for drug dealing."
Right.
I'm no scientist, but even I can see a basic flaw in the "proof" of that video. Heat is infrared light. Light can be scattered. Suppose the CO2 wasn't absorbing the candle heat but occluding it by meerly scattering the light like a bunch of tiny mirrored particles. The video doesn't prove anything about CO2's heat absorbing qualities, but it certainly pretends to.
Here's what nobody explains well: CO2 doesn't absorb IR. In fact, it behaves exactly as you believe - it scatters it, so that a portion of CO2 isn't sent straight through, but is redirected randomly, some of it right back in the direction it came from. However, CO2 is completely transparent to visible light, and has no scattering effect at those wavelengths. Most of the sun's energy reaches us as visible light. Most of the energy that radiates from Earth back to space does it as IR.
So what CO2 REALLY does is prevent some IR energy from radiating away from Earth, while still allowing the full amount of visible solar energy to come in. The demo is spot on.
Another 7 reductions and we would get a 1970s global cooling scare revival
In much of America, the earth is flat. Especially in the Bible belt. There it is so flat, that if you lie down on the ground and stare at the horizon, then you can see feint light and dark lines. Those are the next 14 days coming on.
Now it's all data is wrong, only the models are right. You can always adjust the data to fit the model, but you never adjust the model to fit the data!
That is a beautifully simple test to show how CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Sadly, it will be ignored, because it is wrong(TM)*.
* wrong(TM) is a trademark or the Republican party, and should not be used to imply that something is objectively incorrect.
Which makes me wonder what kind of weird history you were taught...
I don't know about other places, but in Anytown USA, we are/were(?) taught that at one point, people thought the Earth was flat.
Ridicule people all you want, it was taught. Deal with it.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I want proof, and that is YOUR SIDE's responsibility to provide it.
There's proof a plenty based in theory as well as scientific experimentation at various scales, as well modelling of the effect ...
The irony; it burns.
"Theory" and "modelling" are not proof, they only precede it: theory produces models.
If the models are verified then that moves closer to proof.
If the models do not match actual observations, the models must be scrapped and the theory must be adjusted.
Adjusting the underlying data instead to support the model is scientific falsehood.
Take a look at a graph of CO2 concentrations in the global atmosphere by near and then at the average global temperature by year. You don't even have a correlation... None. Let alone a causality. CO2 is a tiny percentage of the environment and has a very very weak greenhouse gas effect. Increases in CO2 has a beneficial impact on plant growth and O2 production - it's a dynamic system, not a static laboratory experiment. And scale is everything. Added CO2 increasers the greenhouse effect. Sure. And peeing in the ocean causes the seal level to rise, just not enough to matter.
Definition of a bigot: Feeling superior to those who hold a differing opinion. You shouldn't be comfortable with that. There are many Phd career Meteorologist who disagree with your assessment. Unless you have a lifetime of work in Meteorology and a Phd, you may be as guilty of coming to your position in exactly the same way you accuse those who disagree with you of coming to theirs. Maybe.
CFC's are significantly heavier than air. When working with CFCs, we were told to avoid low places, as the gas would collect there. How Chlorine gas made it into the upper atmosphere was explained, but the quantities involved didn't match the "threat".
I will stipulate that Chlorine gas and ozone are indeed incompatible, but can you name the largest source of Chlorine gas on the planet? This source continues to release it to this day.
CFC's are significantly heavier than air. When working with CFCs, we were told to avoid low places, as the gas would collect there. How Chlorine gas made it into the upper atmosphere was explained, but the quantities involved didn't match the "threat". I will stipulate that Chlorine gas and ozone are indeed incompatible, but can you name the largest source of Chlorine gas on the planet? This source continues to release it to this day.
So... if 90% of the worlds population, industry, and CFC releases are in the NORTHERN Hemisphere - why is it that they caused a hole in the Ozone layer only over Antartica? Let me guess, CFC's float to the top of the globe? (And you think Republicans are the morons) Also, the hole was there the very first time measurements were recorded. It's quite an assumption to think that it wasn't there before. It's been shown that it closed up, and is more variable, than any impact that could be attributed any the reduction in CFCs. Didn't do the rest of your reading, or your propaganda site didn't give you that little published fact? I guess you are so much smarter than Republicans that you don't need to read any contradictory analysis. It must feel good to be that superior.
warming rises you!
Everyone assumes melting will cause sea levels to rise, never think that the water may go deeper into the Earth.
There's nowhere in the world that AGW has caused rainfall to change significantly. You'd be best looking at other options.
(Of course, if you want to start with the AGW hypothesis, that's fine to. But investigate it, don't go around unscientifically blaming things. That's how you get lynched).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The bad effects of global warming are largely hypothetical still.
I hope you get to experience just how "hypothetical" the pain of a broken bone is.
I hope you learn science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Again, you seem to be reading what you want to hear, and not what people actually say. I never said it was AGW.
The point was that we having witnessed dramatic climate change, we are less prone to the irrational anti-science denialism seen in parts of the US.
As it happens, there is some evidence that this could be significantly due to GW, which would be a rare example. Or it could be more from land-clearing.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/...
I get your argument, and I agree with it, but I would caution against saying that CO2 doesn't absorb IR. It does, due to internal vibrational motion (stretches and bends); just look at the absorption spectrum.
It doesn't permanently absorb the light, though, and I think that's where what you say is critical. It absorbs it for a short time, and then the vibrational excitation drops back down to the lower state. When this happens, it emits a photon of the same frequency that it absorbed. This photon flies off in a random direction, creating the scattering effect.
At least, this is my understanding of it. Absorption happens in this scattering, but the timescale of absorption is very short.
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
Please read up on how CFCs actually react with the Ozone in the atmosphere, and way the ozone destruction is seasonal and very dependent on atmospheric temperature. Then you'll see why the effect over Antartica is stronger than in the northern hemisphere.
Start with your textbooks on atmospheric science (Wallace/Hobbs probably has a chapter on it), or even easier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, came up with a theoretical chemical formula, tested it and proved that it worked. So with a hard proven scientific model, they banned CFCs and within a few years the hole started decreasing in size.
Seriously, if that isn't hard science, then I don't know what is.
I get your argument, and I agree with it, but I would caution against saying that CO2 doesn't absorb IR. It does, due to internal vibrational motion (stretches and bends); just look at the absorption spectrum.
It doesn't permanently absorb the light, though, and I think that's where what you say is critical. It absorbs it for a short time, and then the vibrational excitation drops back down to the lower state. When this happens, it emits a photon of the same frequency that it absorbed. This photon flies off in a random direction, creating the scattering effect.
At least, this is my understanding of it. Absorption happens in this scattering, but the timescale of absorption is very short.
This type of absorption is very different from what the OP was referring to with the term, and so there is a lot of potential for confusion there. Yes, a CO2 molecule can be temporarily energized by an incoming IR photon, but it releases that energy shortly thereafter - it isn't permanently storing up or destroying IR photons the way the OP seemed to believe. So in the context of specific physics terminology I was certainly imprecise - but in the context of the OP's understanding of "absorption" I'm not sure if technical precision would have helped or hurt the argument.
It's a challenge to have productive discussions where science meets politics... precision is critically important in the sciences, because one of the great challenges of any technical task of nontrivial complexity is making sure that everybody involved is communicating about precisely the same thing, with no room for misinterpretation. If you can't communicate unambiguously, you can't make progress.
In almost every other field, and especially politics, the goal is exactly the opposite. Politicians communicate as ambiguously as possible, because a well-formed slogan will create positive feelings yet be flexible enough to mean almost anything... "Change we can believe in" and "Make America great again" being examples. A well formed political slogan will allow people to take vastly different meanings from it, and support a single campaign for completely different reasons.
I think typical human communication is closer to political speech than technical speech, so the challenge is, how do you communicate effectively with people who use language very ambiguously without misrepresenting the underlying science?
Link looks interesting I'll have to dig in deeper later.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
One of the things they degrade into is chlorine. Guess what chlorine does to ozone.
I award you zero points, etc.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Given that content of CO2 in atmosphere is so tiny, does it really do any perceptible greenhouse effect?
Yes, but the problem with estimating the quantity of warming is that there are several non-linear feedback loops. In particular, global warming causes increased evaporation from the oceans, putting more water vapor into the air. Water vapor is a more-powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (producing even more warming) -- but, on the other hand, more water vapor also means more clouds, which reflect sunlight before it hits the ocean or the land.
The study in the link you shared took a computer model (the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory's CM2.5 model) and used it to model rainfall in Australia. The model predicted that in the future, rainfall would decrease as more warming was globally felt. They found that recent changes in rainfall seemed consistent with the changes in warming.
Because the study relies so heavily on a climate model, the question is, "How accurate is the model?" According to the IPCC (AR5, chapter 9) climate models are not very accurate in predicting rainfall. The are also not good at predicting temperature changes in smaller areas (although their resolution is relatively small). (It might be pointed out that Australia is not particularly small.) Furthermore, rainfall in Australia is heavily dependent on ENSO, and models are not good at predicting ENSO (which is not surprising, considering how little data we have on ENSO).
Conclusion is that a model's predictions are interesting, but the error bars are too wide to draw any firm conclusions. If El Nino becomes less frequent, then Australia could easily see more rainfall as a result of AGW.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"There's a problem at the other end of the spectrum of exaggerating or grabbing on the less likely scenarios to claim things are going to be worse then is likely. Claims that all the ice will permanently be gone soon or that an extreme event is proof.
There are error bars in the best models and the good models do have variation and the smart thing is to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, but extreme claims in either direction is unproductive and can be counter-productive."
I definitely see these same people on the Left that you do and while I have no use for them they clearly aren't very influential. If they were, we wouldn't be in our current situation where the mainstream consensus is that we aren't doing any where near enough.
In other words, the far Left element is hardly something to worry about right now, I worry about them as much as I do flat earthers. Meanwhile, it's a good sized chunk of our nation's Right that are keeping us from getting to where we should be on our emissions.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.