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.
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!
Why? Because one study attempts to challenge an existing notion?
I can't help but wonder whether all those predictions are really actionable.
It depends on the action.
By far the most effective changes so far have been because of technological progress: Fracking (gas emits half the CO2 as coal), LED lighting, more efficient solar panels, bigger & better wind turbines, electric vehicles, better batteries, etc.
So if the "action" is more scientific progress, then sure, that makes sense.
If the "action" is to spend even more on scientific research, and engineering R&D, that likely makes sense as well.
If the"action" is some enormous and expensive subsidy scheme, we can wait on that.
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."
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."
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.
This is a dangerous and foolish attitude to take. The threats facing humanity raised by the "greens" -- your chosen term not mine -- are real, quantifiable, and ongoing and will not go away because a particular milestone has not been reached when predicted. There are crystal clear and very worrying trends across a range of domains such as climate, deforestation, availability of fresh water, insect populations, desertification, and pollution. Brushing them aside because the "apocalypse" hasn't happened yet is beyond silly.
soylentnews.org
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
Voldemort? Maybe we should call Harry Potter!
California is a state who claims to supports the environment. The enormous cognitive dissonance they possess presents itself in the selling of millions of gallons of water to Nestle along with the consumption of wasteful products like 'almond milk' and actual almonds, while collectively shitting on beef and normal agricultural practices is hilarious.
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.
So one group publishes a pair of papers that predict a particular bad outcome of climate change will be less severe than previously predicted.... and climate science is terrible now?
You think this one pair of papers by one group is correct and disproves all the existing sea level rise predictions? You don't suppose they made a mistake in their analysis that some other group will find and publish a response?
For sea level rise in particular it's always been accepted that it's really hard to model which is why there's always massive ranges given.
At the same time I suppose you also think that Climate Science is some sort of conspiracy were they don't let any researchers break the party line. Lucky these folks were able to sneak their papers into an obscure little journal like Nature.
This is how science works, usually everyone is in general agreement but sometimes someone publishes an outlier, usually they're wrong but sometimes they're right and they become the new general agreement.
Hopefully this time the dissenting prediction is right because sea level rise is really bad!
I stole this Sig
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?
https://www.nature.com/nature/...
It hardly matters since there is no available expertise in the government for any of these things
Most scientific funding decisions are not made at the political level. NSF and NIH funding decisions are made by scientists themselves. DARPA funding is usually goal-directed rather than basic research, but the decisions there are also made by subject matter experts, and they have a good track record.
More spending on science and R&D will bring us more prosperity, better health, and cleaner air. It is something we should be doing regardless of AGW.
Spending on science should be increased by 5-10% per year over the next decade, to double current spending levels. There is nothing better than we can do for global warming, national security, or our own prosperity and well-being.
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.
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.
Yeah because:
a) Sea level rise is the only problem caused by global warming,
and
b) This new paper couldn't possibly be wrong.
No sig today...
By scaring people with unfounded horror
Terrorism?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
I do not think it is a conspiracy. What I think is that mass hysteria makes it difficult to have any meaningful discussion on the subject of changing climate. It is all in the open which makes it difficult for anybody to claim conspiracy.
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 do not think it is a conspiracy. What I think is that mass hysteria makes it difficult to have any meaningful discussion on the subject of changing climate. It is all in the open which makes it difficult for anybody to claim conspiracy.
So where's the hysteria here?
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model. And one of the big reasons is they think the ice caps could start sliding into the ocean and cause a huge sea level rise (MICI).
This group is saying they they don't think that even if the MICI happens it won't cause as big a rise as predicted.
All of that seems like reasonable good science. Sure a study that disagrees with the consensus introduces a bit more uncertainty into the field, but no one has ever claimed that sea level rise predictions were completely reliable.
I stole this Sig
You do not have to be a specialist to realize that given the conditions (esp. political ones but also the natural ones - the physical inertia of the natural systems due to their size) it is better to act on assumption the climate will change in particular direction than trying to switch off all reliable power plants. Dutch increasing the level of flood protection (Blade Runner 2049 style) is reasonable if one were to believe in man made global warming while German switching off their last reliable power plants by 2038 is just silly shit by ignorants.
I can sum their article up in one word:
BULL$#1T
The single largest contributor to the 52-98 cm of sea level rise we are expecting is thermal expansion, which is not chaotic at all. The ice is a huge wildcard which is responsible for the 46 cm of uncertainty in that figure.
This represents the most evidence-supported estimate we have to go on; assuming ice will contribute 0 is also making an unnecessarily precise prediction. We should act up on the best estimates we have; it's no different than predicting the track of a hurricane three days in advance. That track prediction is almost certainly somewhat off, but it's certainly actionable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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!
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.
Agreed: Germany should be building more nuclear reactors. The Greens are basically right on everything other than their irrational fear of nuclear power.
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The threats facing humanity raised by the "greens" -- your chosen term not mine -- are real, quantifiable, and ongoing and will not go away
They won't go away with a "carbon tax" either. The problem is too many people, all of which need farming, industry, transport and land. I'm sure when the human population was just a few million we had a negligible effect on the environment. So you think you are "saving the world" when in fact all you are suggesting is another rationing system. Rationing does not solve the problem, it just postpones it. Reducing human population (and thus our environmental footprint) solves the problem. But oh no, God says I have to have 6 kids...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.
That quote is wrong. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
The reason is they're really easy to avoid.
Fake quotes are popular because they contradict the accepted persona of the person, for instance if a person is a Liberal the fake quote will be a Trump endorsement, a famous atheist will endorse religion, and if they're a climate scientist it will be an extreme prediction or admission of malfeasence.
But that also makes them really easy to spot, when you see a quote that's too good to be true all you need to do is check the sources and you'll figure out if it's real.
You got caught by that fake Hanson quote. Why is it?
Is your model of James Hansen and other climate scientists wrong, so you couldn't recognize a prediction they wouldn't give?
Or were you just too eager to use the quote that you didn't want to look too closely?
I stole this Sig
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
An alarmist climate scientific paper turns out to be... nothing but alarmist claptrap. Well, I never.
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
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
The problem is too many people, all of which need farming, industry, transport and land.
There's plenty of food for all people on Earth. Why are you proposing a genocide?
But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy. Do you remember water-filled Roosevelt tunnel? I do.
First, this article looks only at Antarctic ice melt contribution, while around 2/3 of the sea rise is caused by simple thermal expansion of deep sea water. It's not going to go away. Even in the absolute best case of 15 centimeter sea rise due to Antarctic ice melt, there's still going to be about 50 centimeter thermal expansion based rise.
The 65 centimeter rise will be enough to put low parts of Manhattan under the water during especially high tides. And Sandy-like events will need only moderate storm surge.
When you do something 7 times and get different answers each time, you a probably doing it wrong.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
Nope, you just need to dump politically motivated science, which like social sciences (again politically motivated) is not actually science at all
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.
Hanson says: "Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
Reiss says: "When I intervieweÂÂd James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptioÂÂn in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
Now the original quote apparently doesn't appear to be on tape. But since both people seem to say it is referring to one highway, in NYC, in 40 years, if CO2 was 560ppm. That hasn't happened yet.
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.
Y'know, I've never met a person who believed that "the problem is too many people" who thinks that they have a moral obligation to remove themselves from the world.
But a lot of them DO think that OTHER people should be removed from the world....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Science : Replication.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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."
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."
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."
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
Well he did just eat your lunch, I'd say that qualifies as a prize.
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy.
Oh, during a hurricane, New York was underwater. You're a real bright spark, what a brilliant argument you've made. Do you really think that's what Hansen was talking about? Go buy yourself a lollipop as a reward for your intelligence, 'cause man, now no one else will for that dumb post you just wrote.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Now the original quote apparently doesn't appear to be on tape. But since both people seem to say it is referring to one highway, in NYC, in 40 years, if CO2 was 560ppm.
It's not going to happen. That is, even if CO2 hit 560ppm (which it will by the end of the century), sea level won't rise that much. That's far outside the probability range.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes, this is actually what Hansen was talking about. Read about it.
Nah. Hansen was wrong. I was right.
"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
He said "traffic is going to be bad." He wasn't talking about during a hurricane.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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."
It's not a shortage of food that's the problem. It's the environmental impact of producing all that food that's the problem. And I'm not proposing genocide, I'm proposing that people breed responsibly.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Well that's one way to deal with the problem - avoid it and ignore it altogether. I'm not proposing to remove anyone from the world, I'm proposing that we stop adding so many people every year.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This impact can be minimized - electric farming equipment, new nitrogen fixation methods, cheaper desalination, etc.
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.
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.
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
Actually the quote said the West Side highway would be underwater by 2028 if CO2 hit 560 ppm (we're currently at 410 and by the trend line it isn't going to get anywhere close).
Now I don't know how many climate scientists would agree with that statement, I don't know if James Hansen would still agree with it.
But I literally gave you a link that you claimed to have read and you still got the quote completely wrong.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
I don't need a participation ribbon for not being gullible.
As I said it's really easy not to get tricked by fake quotes, just have a reasonable model of the world and don't accept convenient facts uncritically.
I stole this Sig
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.
My god, that's the most idiotic thing I've read all day. And it is a weekend for Pete's sake.
Someone never learned about good sportsmanship. Look them in the eyes and say "good game". Then we'll all go out for pizza.
That's disgusting, have you ever even been to Crete?
Maybe we should just declare war on the polluters, and bomb them? Less people, less pollution.
I thought it was gonna be the Church Lady from SNL.
So you want to do everything you can to avoid actually dealing with the problem. Kinds of like politicians who are so afraid of negative population growth that they actually import "faster breeding" immigrants. What is so horrible about declining populations? Fewer people = less stress on existing infrastructure, less requirement for government services, etc.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
Rationing does not solve the problem, it just postpones it. Reducing human population (and thus our environmental footprint) solves the problem
You are rationing population. Or you are rationing survival rights, or rights to leave behind progeny.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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.
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.
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.
Half the population of the world dying isn't genocide, it's a correction.
You're welcome to keep all the various races, tribes and populations in the current proportions.
Better yet, we don't need to kill anybody. Just provide education, contraception and wait 40 years.
Y'know, I've never met a person who believed that "the problem is too many people" who thinks that they have a moral obligation to remove themselves from the world.
That's because it's perfectly possible to reduce world population without removing anybody from the world.
But a lot of them DO think that OTHER people should be removed from the world....
A lot of people that don't think the world is overpopulated also support removing other people from the world. It's hardly unique to people that recognise that there are too many humans.
There are however many people that are acting on their belief that overpopulation is a bad thing, by not perpetuating or exacerbating it.
Strangely they get yelled at for being abnormal, as though avoiding having children is in some way reprehensible. Shit, Hungary just passed a law to try and turn women into baby factories. But they get to claim EU funds to pay for them..
Since I can't be arsed to go downstairs and find an ice cube, what's the relative density and how does that compare to the proportion of the ice that's in the water?
Ice floats, ice bergs stick up above the water. That ice above the water will be added to it when the ice melts, offsetting the reduced volume of the ice that was in the water melting. How much is offset and what's the resultant change in volume?
Plus of course we need to examine two states: One is end-state, when all the ice has melted. The other is an interim state, when all the glaciers slide off land and into the sea. At that point the sea level will have to include that added volume from the lower density ice. Although of course, that's likely to be offset in part or fully by reduced volumes of ice in the Arctic.
So many factors. So little certainty. So many arguments over utter silliness.
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.
Gees, Glaciers and ice sheets tend to float on water in the Antarctic,
A glacier floating on water isn't a glacier. Ice in the Antarctic Sea is generally relatively thin and most of it is seasonal. Ice on Antarctica doesn't float on water, it's sat on land.
Greenland is nothing. If Antarctica melts most of Europe goes under water.
if a piece of a few km breaks off and slides into the sea, it's game over for humanity with a tsunami
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.
When you do something 7 times and get different answers each time, you a probably doing it wrong.
This is one answer, about 1/7 th of the current best estimate.
Seven times is the reduction, not the number of changes.
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.
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.
Nah. The nearby coastlines will be devastated but most of the world wont notice.
Tsunamis have immense energy but not enough to beat gravity long enough to cover the globe.
Since I don't know the geography of New York, I looked it up. West Side Highway is Highway 9A. Some parts are elevated, which can be ignored. Other parts seem to be pretty close to the water, and the topographical map indicates it is under 10ft in elevation. Google street view seems to confirm this. Checking other sources, parts of it may be about 1.5M above sea level.
OTOH, it seems like around 560ppm, the current models include that sea level rise, but on a much longer timeframe.
I'm not going to dig deeper, because I don't have the time, but a timeframe of 40 years seems too soon under current models.
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!
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.
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!
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
It gets harder and harder to convince people your consensus is right when your doomsday predictions are in the past and haven't come true.
And why do you promote genocide? Presumably so that only the Chose Races can remain after it?
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."
I don't need a participation ribbon for not being gullible. As I said it's really easy not to get tricked by fake quotes,
Nah, it's incredibly more likely that you have a low sense of self-awareness.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's true, I'd rather kick them in the shin. A personality defect, it is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A seal-level rise greater than a meter is unlikely by the end of the century, according to the IPCC.
"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/...
Less need to spend that GDP.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Why the fuck do all you people think about genocide? Where did I say genocide? In none of my posts do I mention genocide, idiots. BREED LESS. HAVE FEWER CHILDREN. The population will decline all by itself. That's not genocide.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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."
Since it's rather tricky to create quasars in the lab I suppose that means astronomy isn't a science?
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.
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) .....
Let's try this thing called "Google": It seems sea level has already risen by 9 cm in the past 26 years.
The headline is poorly written and ambiguous. Should be something like "new estimate is 1/7 of previous estimates". There also seems to be an assumption that the new estimate is right and all previous estimates were therefore wrong.
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.