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.
... is okay. We are firing the lead scientist tomorrow and replacing everyone with Chinese researchers
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!
Seriously, they didn't take into account Antarctica and Greenland? The two biggest masses of ice in the world?
And they just think those will be stay frozen or what?
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
Simply take a look to a current image of the world and see how much ice is left in the north pole and compare it against the south pole and Greenland (which are currently melting at a extremely fast pace).
"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."
"Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses" - Soo... plastic in the ocean, depleted fisheries and plunging ecological diversity, disappearing insects, deforestation, oil/mining heavy metal & radioactive pollutants, fly ash, trash no longer being recycled, "recycling" entailing dumping bales of wire on a Somalian shore and setting fire to it, famine/drought killing hundreds of thousands of people in places further affected by ever-increasing temps, none of these are real issues, got it.
When Republican trashminds lie to try to justify more trash, you just have to sit back and appreciate the mountain of it they've apologized for already, to be at this point, apologizing for it infinitely more.
We know you Crash. We know how badly you need to apologize for this stuff, every time, and pretend none of these are issues. The fact is you're just wrong, every time.
I_I - I_I - I_I- I_I- I_I
|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|
|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|
|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|
|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|o|
Donald Trump: Slayer of the globalist dragon.®
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.
"The destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet may not lead to such a catastrophic rise in the level of the oceans, as previously thought."
Well this won't sound good to the global warming cultists... especially the ones that wanted to put deniers in jail. And they wonder why people scoff at them?
"Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses that the greens have predicted." = What the liar said. Learn to read, Republican trash apologists. It'll make you more believable as propagandists trying to peddle infinite pollution (aka warming doesn't exist nor matter, your bullshit slogan)
Warming is a result of pollution. It's only one of the many ways human actions have degraded the natural systems our food web and existence ongoing depends on.
The crybaby libertarian liars who want to pretend none of this is happening advocate against fixing ANY of them. See : Crashmarik.
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.
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.
Donald Trump, prisoner 83-3749-FL01 Treason commuted to Life without the possibility of parole. Serving his sentences concurrently at ADX Florence, no cantina privileges, doctor's orders.
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?
"We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up."
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case. So far it looks to be the case that higher CO2 amounts are contributing to warming things up but that is because we have correlation. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because CO2 its will trap heat does not mean that it traps enough to be of concern.
"How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere?"
If they knew that then model predictions would be more accurate and since they cannot determine how much, it adds to skepticism that CO2 is really trapping heat at all.
"Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge."
And this is why I call much of it a cult... the desire to ramrod legislation and ridicule anyone not buying the mantra. Lets gets some solid provable data out here.
Right now GW is entirely a Hoax, not because of it happening or not, but because the solutions being recommended do not actually solve the problem and are nothing more than money changing and wealth redistribution gimmicks which according to history will likely only lock the solutions down to the wealthy elite as becoming the proprietors and gatekeepers of solutions for global warming creating an even larger wealth gap, despite the believe it would reduce it.
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."
... and Ill say it again, with all due respect, these fuckers (aka scientists) know very little about the planet.
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!"
Stone's arrest:
He was taken into custody in an early morning FBI raid in Florida Jan. 25 after being indicted on charges that lied about alleged communications with the Trump campaign about hacked emails possessed by WikiLeaks.
Cohen's guilty plea and sentence:
He pleaded guilty to eight counts related to tax fraud, making false statements to a financial institution, excessive campaign contributions, and unlawful corporate contributions. He said he was directed to violate campaign law at the direction of an unnamed candidate — implicating Trump.
In November, Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 about the length and scope of plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He originally told the committee the work stopped in January 2016 and was not discussed with others in the Trump campaign. Mueller claims Cohen discussed getting Russian approval for the project as late as June 2016.
In December, Cohen was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Russia:
Trump Tower meeting: The June 2016 meeting between Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian national in which they were expecting damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but didn't get it.
Russian ambassador meeting: Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. Flynn later asked Kislyak not to escalate Russia's response to new sanctions imposed in the last days of the Obama administration, and then lied to the FBI about it.
Page meeting: Carter Page met in Moscow with Russia's deputy prime minister and a Russian oil official in June 2016.
Papadopoulos meeting: George Papadopoulos met in London in March 2016 with a professor who later told him Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
Election interference:
13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities were indicted on charges of violating criminal laws to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election.
On the same day, Mueller struck a plea deal with California resident Richard Pinedo who was accused of knowingly making tens of thousands of dollars by transferring hundreds of bank account numbers that were ultimately used to commit wire fraud.
The hacking:
12 Russian military officers were indicted for hacking and releasing the emails of Democratic campaign organizations, including the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, in an effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The Manafort verdict:
Manafort was found guilty on 8 criminal counts, including bank fraud, tax fraud and hiding a foreign bank account. The verdicts were focused on his activities as a lobbyist for Ukraine.
Mueller's team alleged Manafort violated his plea deal by lying repeatedly to federal investigators and the Mueller's team about his contact with the administration and a Russian.
Who's not on the list:
Donald Trump Jr. The bigger intrigue is about why there have been no reports that Mueller's team has questioned Trump Jr., given that he is a key player in one of the biggest events: the Trump Tower meeting with Manafort and Kushner. (He did testify before a Senate committee.)
President Trump has submitted written answers about pre-election dimensions of the Russia probe to Mueller's team, but did not answer questions about his behavior as president, including allegations of obstruction of justice.
This story has been updated with Stone's indictment and arrest.
Warming is not a result of pollution, you rancid faggot. Literally nobody has ever argued that. Carbon is produced by 100% natural and normal processes, like your fat, disgusting, mouth-breathing carcass passing gas.
"The earth is heating up because I got a plastic straw from McDonald's!"
You fucking moron. Your stupidity would be hilarious if it wasn't so fucking tragically retarded. I feel the same way about you that I would a kid with Downs burning his penis while jacking off with bleach.
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.
"The ozone layer literally did just heal itself," WE BANNED THE CHLORO FLUORO'S YOU ILLITERATE TRASHEATING REPUBLICAN FAGGOT LIARS LOL.
It'd be funnier if you had some wittier denialism, something linking Trump's pure innocence to the absolute proof that climate change isn't real. That's what you need - a punchline.
Off to prison with you Trumptard traitors, there's no place in science for lying faggots like you anymore since big tobacco got sued to pieces.
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.
When Trump is re-elected in 2020 will you use a blade, gun, poison, jump, or step out into traffic?
Orange Man Bad
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.
Are you trying to say it's unaffected by Chloro-Fluorocarbons, CFC's, which were banned for the purpose of stopping the enlargement of the hole, which it did, and is not now threatened by illegal Chinese pollutants that do the same thing?
Are you some kind of obviously lying retarded zero-history-or-fact-knowing faggot propagandist, lol?
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.
which were banned for the purpose of stopping the enlargement of the hole, which it did
Correlation =/= causation. You can't prove the hole is caused by CFC's either. Someone came up with a theoretical chemical formula. However it's entirely possible that CFC's degrade by themselves with UV light before ever reaching the stratosphere.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
BE SURE TO PACK LUBE, JUNIOR. PRISON GONNA SUCK LIKE PUTIN'S COCK IN YOUR DAD'S MOUTH, FAGGOT.
Stone's arrest:
He was taken into custody in an early morning FBI raid in Florida Jan. 25 after being indicted on charges that lied about alleged communications with the Trump campaign about hacked emails possessed by WikiLeaks.
Cohen's guilty plea and sentence:
He pleaded guilty to eight counts related to tax fraud, making false statements to a financial institution, excessive campaign contributions, and unlawful corporate contributions. He said he was directed to violate campaign law at the direction of an unnamed candidate — implicating Trump.
In November, Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 about the length and scope of plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He originally told the committee the work stopped in January 2016 and was not discussed with others in the Trump campaign. Mueller claims Cohen discussed getting Russian approval for the project as late as June 2016.
In December, Cohen was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Russia:
Trump Tower meeting: The June 2016 meeting between Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian national in which they were expecting damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but didn't get it.
Russian ambassador meeting: Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. Flynn later asked Kislyak not to escalate Russia's response to new sanctions imposed in the last days of the Obama administration, and then lied to the FBI about it.
Page meeting: Carter Page met in Moscow with Russia's deputy prime minister and a Russian oil official in June 2016.
Papadopoulos meeting: George Papadopoulos met in London in March 2016 with a professor who later told him Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
Election interference:
13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities were indicted on charges of violating criminal laws to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election.
On the same day, Mueller struck a plea deal with California resident Richard Pinedo who was accused of knowingly making tens of thousands of dollars by transferring hundreds of bank account numbers that were ultimately used to commit wire fraud.
The hacking:
12 Russian military officers were indicted for hacking and releasing the emails of Democratic campaign organizations, including the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, in an effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The Manafort verdict:
Manafort was found guilty on 8 criminal counts, including bank fraud, tax fraud and hiding a foreign bank account. The verdicts were focused on his activities as a lobbyist for Ukraine.
Mueller's team alleged Manafort violated his plea deal by lying repeatedly to federal investigators and the Mueller's team about his contact with the administration and a Russian.
Who's not on the list (yet):
Donald Trump Jr. The bigger intrigue is about why there have been no reports that Mueller's team has questioned Trump Jr., given that he is a key player in one of the biggest events: the Trump Tower meeting with Manafort and Kushner. (He did testify before a Senate committee.)
President Trump has submitted written answers about pre-election dimensions of the Russia probe to Mueller's team, but did not answer questions about his behavior as president, including allegations of obstruction of justice.
This story has been updated with Stone's indictment and arrest.
"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
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.
It's not science it's religion
b) This new paper couldn't possibly be wrong.
As opposed to James Hansen predicting Manhattan being underwater
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...
As Opposed to the end of winter snow ?
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
Still waiting for the ice free arctic btw
As Opposed to the UN (you know the IPCC people) Predicting 50 million refugees from rising seas
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
That's another one where the original material has been taken down in embarrassment BTW
As opposed to Florida being scourged to the limestone by Hurricanes
As opposed to the Ice age we were going to be in
As opposed to the population bomb that had civilization collapsing by now
As opposed to the predictions that we would be out of oil, out of metals and out of just about everything by now.
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."
No wonder they don't allow Republicans onto college campuses anymore. You faggots have no place there. You belong in the coal mines, slaves to your retarded treasonous zero-science ideology. Oh well.
So long Trump traitors, prison will be reformative for your party I'm sure.
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.
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. Even with these hedged bets all of their predictions are still wrong.
Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Sometimes we are a little closer to the sun and the temperature goes up and we drift further away from the sun and it goes down a bit. All of this has been happening long before the factories and the big bad automobile were on the scene.
Cow farts, it is said, are responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gasses. More than cars, airplanes and all other forms of transport combined. So keep that in mind the next time you read some alarmist environmentalist article about Miami being under water within the next 10 years. It's not happening.
Remember Al Gore and his dire predictions? In 2007 he predicted with great certainty:
1) Sea levels could rise 6 meters (20 feet). Not only has that been proven to be complete and utter bullshit but Antarctica has more ice now than it did then. By the way, Gore owns a seaside mansion. I guess he can't be too worried about rising sea levels after all.
2) Hurricane Katrina was man made. He predicted that hurricanes of this sort were the new norm. Wrong again. Much of the destruction from Katrina was due to the neglect in the levee repair so to that degree, and only that degree, it is man made. Political blundering and corruption, for which Louisiana has a long and storied history.
3) The Arctic ice is melting. The Arctic has actually gained ice mass. Those photos of polar bears stranded on a lonely piece of ice are pure propaganda.
There are more but you get the idea. How this Gore clown has evaded ridicule is beyond me. But by all means, cue up money for more research. I will continue to observe from the gallery, popcorn in hand.
"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."
Huh? Sure there's an ignorant sort out there on both ends of the spectrum, I completely agree. The problem is with global warming is that it's the ignorant end of the Right that is the problem and even then a lot of the "moderates" are part of it too. I've never heard of the ignorant elements of the far left doubting the generally accepted model of human driven global warming in any substantive numbers. I'd like to see a data source before I'd think such a claim was even possible.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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
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.
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.
"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."
And that is exactly why you are a cultist. Doubt is the enemy of Faith, it is NOT the enemy of science. You will never run into anyone intelligent by the standards you have set. You will only run into unintelligent people. By the way... avoid the mirror, you will not find any intelligent folks there either.
Stop treating people that don't believe in the same things you do as being ignorant or stupid. They just just do not come to the same conclusions that you do when looking at the evidence. And since you make it clear that the only intelligent people on the subject are the cultists then you leave little room for discussion on the subject. You are exactly the kind of person this is the problem in this discussion, moron to a fault and anyone unwilling to subscribe to your version of idiocy cannot be intelligent.
I don't view scientists that believe in AGW as stupid, but I do view the people agreeing to Political wealth redistribution schemes as a solution to it as stupid. But folks like you... I just consider you to be nothing more than a member of another moronic cult that can't separate fact from faith.
This is why there is a fundamental breakdown here.
I go label as a troll, my accusations are not a troll. They are grounded in pure science. How can that be the case? Because the problem with how the general lay person like you perceives the words proof and evidence.
Yes, the demonstration provides evidence that "carbon" will hold heat... do you know what else does? A lot of other things like water vapor... in fact we call it steams as it transitions from a liquid to a gas state. Here is the problem... the experiment proves nothing. It's like saying a person settling a case instead of fighting it out in court is automatically guilty. That is not true, and people know why. Proving that CO2 will hold heat is not really at issue, it is the exclusive driving "faith" in this as a sole conclusion. These systems are incredibly complex but folks keep trying to reduce everything down to a single cause. Well, if you knew anything about medicine you would know that this is never the cause. There is never a single driving cause to an issue. Single events may lead to singular conclusions on a microscopic scale, but often time are never lead to final conclusions on a macroscopic scale.
I am not a denier either. I don't deny that warming is occurring, but I definitely reserve my rights to treat all evidence as suspect with these cultists coming out of the wood work with 100% of their predictions failing.
I want proof, not just evidence. I am sure you understand the fundamental difference right?
"I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to."
Of course you think I am ignorant, you are being dragged into the realm of pseudo science, and though I would say "thank you" for providing links to material... I asked for "proof" not "evidence". I have seen the evidence... and I agree that it is indeed "evidence" but it is not "proof"... the precious threshold that needs to be met before we start getting married to a bunch of solutions that require radical alterations to how we live. Especially when those radical alterations are being driven by a group of people I know with 100% certainty are going to abuse the power they gain from holding those reigns. Humans have a problem with corruption, it's not a matter of it... it's a matter of when. Therefore all solutions must have an automatic out built into it, and right now... no one is thinking about what happens if they are wrong and we start causing a bunch of human suffering over a bad scientific guess. We have done this many times already when it comes to medicine. I was called the assault on butter and fat a bullshit crusade 2 decades ago. And do you know what helped drive me to that conclusion? A simple chicken egg... if fat was so bad... why does a chicken develop without having a heart attack? Why do the body store energy in fat? Well, the medical industry is starting to back off of that load of BS finally, but the entire time I hate to put up with folks just like you calling me an unintelligent quack that is too ignorant to know what I was talking about. Do you know what else they had back then? They have evidence that said high cholesterol and fat would give you a heart attack then too... but as usual, there is a lot more things going on then just one simple component, proving folks just like you... wrong. Because you found a little evidence and decided that was all you needed to mount a holy crusade to foolishly change civilization. There are people literally dead because of that. Literally Dead, not to mention all the people that have suffered because they believed that trash and altered their diets in unhealthy ways.
Get Proof! Simple!
You have no science behind your doubts, lying idiot.
Except you have no science behind your doubts, lying idiot. You're just a propagandist, not a science-anything.
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.
Except you have no science behind your doubts, lying idiot. You're just a propagandist, not a science-anything.
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
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
So, you're saying Fox is exactly like all the others.
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.
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.
My god, that's the most idiotic thing I've read all day. And it is a weekend for Pete's sake.
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? )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."