Slashdot Mirror
Extreme CO2 Levels Could Trigger Clouds 'Tipping Point' and 8C of Global Warming (carbonbrief.org)
If atmospheric CO2 levels exceed 1,200 parts per million (ppm), it could push the Earth's climate over a "tipping point", finds a new study. This would see clouds that shade large part of the oceans start to break up. From a report: According to the new paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience, this could trigger a massive 8C rise in global average temperatures -- in addition to the warming from increased CO2. The only similar example of rapid warming at this magnitude in the Earth's recent history is the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55m years ago, when global temperatures increased by 5-8C and drove widespread extinction of species on both the oceans and land.
However, scientists not involved in the research caution that the results are still speculative and that other complicating factors could influence if or when a tipping point is reached. The threshold identified by the researchers -- a 1,200ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 -- is three times current CO2 concentrations. If fossil fuel use continues to rapidly expand over the remainder of the century, it is possible levels could get that high. The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth's atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of this century. Further reading: A state-of-the-art supercomputer simulation indicates that a feedback loop between global warming and cloud loss can push Earth's climate past a disastrous tipping point in as little as a century.
However, scientists not involved in the research caution that the results are still speculative and that other complicating factors could influence if or when a tipping point is reached. The threshold identified by the researchers -- a 1,200ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 -- is three times current CO2 concentrations. If fossil fuel use continues to rapidly expand over the remainder of the century, it is possible levels could get that high. The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth's atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of this century. Further reading: A state-of-the-art supercomputer simulation indicates that a feedback loop between global warming and cloud loss can push Earth's climate past a disastrous tipping point in as little as a century.
....so far in the future that the people pushing it won't be around to be called the fools they are.
I'm not well-versed in the electrostatic climate discharge newsm
I was starting to literally shake due to climate change article withdrawal
climate change doesn't care whether you believe in it or not
Sucks. I Am ALL FOURS Summer In December. This Is Why TRUMP!
USA could be 100% clean and it won't matter if China and India keep polluting. So this is all fucking pointless.
Are they sure it drove extinction, and wasn't an extinction event which coincided with warming or caused warming (methane from hundreds of millions of rotting carcasses?
There is an abundance of scientists, but no names; so who the 'f are they?
First, this is hardly a "new study". Dr. Guy McPherson PUBLISHED his work on this very thing many years ago. He has a Youtube channel "Nature Bats Last" and you can find many publications and lectures from him on this very subject over the years since the early 2000's. In fact, he predicts the human race will be extinct by 2025 which will greatly accelerate once the ice caps melt to the point that we have an ice free summer.
I still say it's nonsense,
What is the average age of /.'ers these days? 8???
Is pollution bad?
Yes.
Is global warming/climate change bad?
Yes.
Is human activity making climate worse?
Yes.
Is all the over-the-top scaremongering making it ridiculous?
Yes.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD
CO2 levels over geologic time spans are usually much, much higher on Earth than the current 400 ppm. Levels in the thousands PPM are more normal.
For fuck's sake, the scaremongering just plays into denialist hands: "World will end in 12 years!" is straight from a religious nutter. It's just missing the "Repent!"
If global CO2 levels get to 1200ppm, we are going to have even more problems than that. At 1000+ ppm indoor concentrations people start to feel drowsy. Some people will begin to have headaches and experience symptoms of "sick building syndrome". At that concentration CO2 actually becomes an acute hazard.
Article | Published: 25 February 2019 "Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming" - Tapio Schneider, Colleen M. Kaul & Kyle G. Pressel
No need to say more
The publisher made it freely available -- a pleasant rarity.
Note that the focus of the paper appears to be a possible explanation for extreme temperature changes in the past, not that there's a credible chance of this happening any time in the near future.
Come on, not even the IPCC believes that!
Wow these out-and-out climate alarmists. No one even goes above 2 degrees prediction anymore, but these guys doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down and went for 8 degrees. LOL! We'll all be underwater by 2014! The world will end in a few years!
For your info...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgk3xFHvWLE
... was a state of the art SUPER computer. Trust your robot overlords!
Too many people don't understand that the climate is actually a fine tuned and self-regulated system. We're doing the equivalent of throwing dice into the clockworks which doesn't necessarily mean our extinction but the extinction of many of our fellow species. A much bigger problem is that it's highly likely to be less habitable in the future. What if say our food production or water supply was cut in half? It won't kill us but it would make the planet uncomfortable to live on.
Yes, you do exude that odor, being a denialist faggot with your head in your ass and no science credentials.
What is the average age of /.'ers these days? 8???
About 65, I think.
Millennials and younger don't do computers, they're all about their phones. /. is a relic left over from the stone age.
My house is about 2 miles from the paleocene escarpment. This will save all the trouble of having to move to be close to the beach.
They are scared of clouds over oceans vanishing? If I u derstood that correctly, doesn't the also mean more water evaporates? And if more evaporates, doesn't that cool thi gs too?
Not to mention that the water has to go somewhere. Seems to me the climate in Europe is getting dryer. Perhaps that would be impacted as well?
The whole thing seems a tad too simplified. We're talking about global climate here.
CO2 levels have been much higher in our planets history. In the days of the dinosaurs we had levels 5 times what we have today.
https://www.livescience.com/44...
In a few centuries we could hit the levels that the dinosaurs lived in at our current rate.
https://www.scientificamerican...
We should take care not to pollute and certainly take care of our one and only planet. That being said the sky is not falling and scaremongering isn't science.
From the abstract it looks like a doomsday prediction. Predicting an 8 K increase (+265c) in global temperature is an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary evidence.
It's not even an extraordinary claim; it's an extraordinary hypothesis.
Past the doomsday headline, the story says :
"The paper emphasises that large uncertainties remain and the results they find are very much preliminary. Because they are using a high-resolution large-eddy simulation their model lacks many other factors contained in global climate models that operate over larger geographic scales.
"Specifically, climate models suggest that large-scale subsidence in the atmosphere – colder air becoming denser and moving towards the ground – weakens as the world warms. This has the effect of lifting up and cooling cloud tops, which counteracts possible stratocumulus breakup. While the paper tries to account for this, the weakening of subsidence that occurs is uncertain and varies across climate models."
Really, I'm not sure why this is even a story making the news. "Here's some scientists trying to figure out feedback loops in a greenhouse regime that is far from where we currently are, and here's an possible result that is interesting but has yet to be rigorously modelled, much less tested."
If all of you will think way back to where we first were supposed to be alarmed about global warming, it was exactly because too much CO2 was supposed to lead to runaway warming.
Well obviously that never happened, and this new paper is admission that fundamental concern was misplaced In fact now we see we need to get to a very high CO2 level we probably cannot even reach, to MAYBE risk a CO2 rise because of cloud interaction (the idea is only theoretical). It's quite apparent at this point that interaction of CO2 with a real world atmosphere is quite a lot more complex than any climate scientist is willing to admit.
Further proof that what we were told to worry about, should never have been a concern to start with. We seriously need to stop our focus on CO2 and start re-examining real sources of pollution again and focus on those.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think scientists should get credit for their work. Whether it's right or wrong.
They do, however, link to the actual paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
(Which is actually worth reading, since it is much more restrained than the doomsday headline. It's mostly about modelling past climate, not future climate.)
They name two scientist, both of whose names are immediately followed by the phrase "who was not involved in the study" (Prof Andrew Dessler at Texas A&M University, and Dr Kate Marvel at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science)
The problem here is that studies like this are based on *simulations* not observations of repeatable experiments.
True. It's a math model and should be treated as such. Simulations can be very useful but it's important to know the limits and assumptions that go into the model.
What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.
Not true. Presuming the model is accurate it should be making testable predictions about what will happen as the climate chances in the coming years. If the model predictions fits the data we gather well then we have reasonable confidence that it is accurately modeling the real world. Problem is that because the consequences of letting climate change run unchecked are potentially so severe (presuming the model is accurate) we cannot risk actually testing it fully so at some point we'll have to extrapolate and take actions. But we're going to find out at least the early predictions whether we want to or not because some changes are already too late to stop.
If we are being honest here, climate change science is, at best, an educated guessing game, not a proven beyond a doubt set of scientific laws, and specifically I mean "man made climate change."
No it really is not just a guess unless you think every hypothesis is "just a guess". A lot of the science in the field is simply documenting changes that absolutely ARE occurring, many of which were predicted by those same models that you are calling guesswork. The model makes predictions which absolutely can be checked.
The critics of this science have some valid points. Past high profile predictions of our demise from climate change have been wildly over blown, there seems to be a bias towards "making news" in order to get research grants, and little attention is paid to the views of those who disagree with the consensus.
Most of the critics do not actually make or hold valid counter points. They mostly simply are seeking to reinforce their confirmation bias for various reasons. If they were serious about disputing the science the way to do that is present their own alternative testable hypothesis and back it up with data. The scientists are doing this and the critics by and large are not. Since the critics cannot be bothered to actually do the science their opinions (rightly) get ignored.
Simulations have serious limits.
Yes they do. That doesn't mean they are useless. I used to do simulations for a living in a previous job. There is a famous saying that "all models are wrong but some models are useful". If you insist on perfection in the climate models despite them giving you good and actionable data, you are completely missing the point. Newtonian physics isn't the most perfect model we have but it's still extremely useful and gives reasonably accurate testable predictions. A lot of the climate science is throwing off a lot of very useful data and we ignore it at our peril.
The problem is that climate change needs dealt with. However, with studies based on models which are inaccurate have resulted in a constant cry of "wolf!" to the point where people have stopped caring. This is similar to 1991 where people were showing doomsday models about nuclear winter happening about the refinery fires in Kuwait after Saddam set every single oil well alight when his forces retreated. The models were flawed.
The people that can do something about climate change don't give a rat's ass. Throwing alarmist stuff to people already stressed isn't helping the cause.
Yes, climate change exists. Many thousands of papers have passed peer-reviewed journals showing it, while there has never been a single paper passing review that successfully denied it. However, with so many alarmist predictions, people are now turning a deaf ear and have become uninterested, as they can't do anything about it.
There's Pepe the frog, on the Koch brother's payroll, denying climate again.
Look, Pepe: climate /does/ exist, you're just too stupid to grok that. Ah, and climate is not the same as weather. Got that?
"We may be totally wrong, but since that never stopped us before, we have a little thing here to sell... er... TELL!"
Can you spell "advertising"?
You see what you people are doing? You let the "Trump" phenomenon turn everything into a screaming tabloid!
This is actually several dozens of groups coming up with similar modeling and conclusions over the last few years, though yes they differ a small bit they are all saying the same thing. It's not one single study saying this. False characterization.
Not merely dozens of groups, there are hundreds of groups running climate models (possibly thousands: the main models are open source.).
They are all saying the same thing, if by that you mean "human generated greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide, are increasing the Earth's greenhouse effect, and having a warming effect on the climate."
Yes, that part is a clear scientific consensus, well understood, and replicated by many groups.
It is this new result (this paper), suggesting a new feedback mechanism only operating at much higher carbon dioxide levels, of which I am saying "a single study".
And not merely one study: it is one study of which the authors of the study themselves emphasize how preliminary the results are.
Triassic: 1750 ppm CO2. Temp 3 C above modern level.
Jurassic: 1950 ppm CO2. Temp 3 C above modern level.
Cretaceous: 1700 ppm CO2. Temp 4 C above modern level.
Paleogene: 500 ppm CO2. Temp 4 C above modern level.
Neogene: 280 ppm CO2. Temp 0 C above modern level.
Quaternary Period: 250 ppm CO2. Temp 0 C above modern level.
Then you get to the Modern Period. Frankly we are still living in an Ice Age.
I thought it was what The Rock is cooking...
If anyone's interested, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) is running a Climate change debate on his blog, where he invites believers and skeptics to post their best arguments with evidence, and he (as an intelligent person with no background) sorts through the bullshit for us.
One outcome of that debate is that claims of sea levels rising are bullshit. That's a concrete point, one where "the debate is settled" can now be applied. Sea levels have not risen to any appreciable degree, and that point cannot be made to show that climate change is real.
(They may rise in the future, but that is not the same as using *current* sea level changes as an argument for climate change.)
I look forward to Scott examining - one by one - all scientific claims of the climate change debate. Perhaps eventually we will arrive at a position everyone can agree on.
But wait! If higher CO2 eliminates clouds, why does Venus (which has an extremely CO2-rich atmosphere) also have about 100 percent cloud cover?!?
Presuming the model is accurate it should be making testable predictions about what will happen as the climate chances in the coming years.
The problem is that they have predicted every outcome. It's not unlike using a program to predict every combination of the lottery and then when the number comes up, claim that you have successfully predicted the lottery.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's always a doomsday scenario, yet EVERY single climate model has not been a little wrong, but horribly wrong. If you listened to the predictions in the 90's we'd all be dead now and out of oil. I love how every single type of weather is attributed to climate change. Conveniently, there's not one type of weather that can be pointed to as not being climate change, warmer = climate change, colder = climate change, dryer = climate change, wetter = climate change, hurricanes up or down = climate change. When you have a dogmatic system it fails to be science anymore, instead becoming a religion. Especially when none of the science stands on its own and always has to be modified toward an outcome. IPCC is very clear that they are not objective in studying climate phenomenon, rather they are set up specifically to find science that proves global warming/climate change. What other area of study determines the outcome beforehand and then conducts "science" to support it. And don't stay that's what testing for a hypothesis is, because a hypothesis is a guess, not a conclusion, and the predicated outcome often is different from the actual outcome. They've been caught over 100 times modifying and cherrypicking evidence towards a conclusion when not convenient, each day adding to the list. http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/
I would like there to be serious consequences for these prediction not panning out. So far very, very few models have shown any predictive power, and they're all on the "less dramatic", non-doomsday side of the spectrum. So I'd like to see real consequences for alarmism. I.e. we record the prediction, and then 20 years later if it's within less than, say 20% accurate, and it was used to influence public policy, you get to pay 1% of the cost of the measures taken or something like that. I'm open to suggestions. Right now the situation is absurd: I can whip up a computer program which would justify spending trillions of dollars on shit that's not going to work, and the mainstream press will take it at face value and spread my "research" with near-religious zeal. That's not science.
Could..
Might..
As little as...
CO2 is also being taken from the atmosphere by the Earth's ecosystem. It's still a net gain but the trend of overall CO2 emission reduction is very clear, there's no way we will reach the level described even if we did nothing but carried on with existing adoption of solar/nuclear power, and electric vehicles.
Can you point out any models that show CO2 levels even close to 1200ppm? Even the worst case I can find is 1000ppm by 2100 (still a long, long ways off and more than enough time to fully integrate renewable energy across most of the world).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think you are gravely overestimating the accuracy of the simulation models as they move into the future. I think you also are making assumptions about what I actually think.
My personal opinion (and I'm not a climate scientist, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I make no claim to any authority) I think the climate IS changing, things are getting warmer. This is partially due to CO2 emissions, and party just the natural cycling of the planet's climate. We can argue the proportions of what's causing warming, but to me it's a pointless debate. What IS important though is the discussions about what, if anything, we should DO about this.
At this point, we likely part company. I think the climate change lobby are NUTS in a full blown religious sort of way. We may be heading towards a different climate, by our own hands, but some of the proposed solutions I've heard proposed, even in the main stream, are absolute lunacy, both practically, environmentally and economically. There is absolutely no way we can justify the near total destruction of our economy and the violence, death and pestilence which would come to the world's people, yet that's what is being suggested and pushed as the responsible "greed" way. I think we'd be better off foregoing the self inflicted pain and deal with whatever climate change decides to dish out, because up to this point, the dire predictions of the past have been proven wildly wrong.
Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance, but it can give you a pretty good idea what is possible. In this case, the global warming/climate change alarmist bent is alive and well. I strongly suspect they are being as ridiculously dire as they always have, if not more, and I'm unwilling to agree to basically commit "Harry Carry" on the alter of climate change.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Onshore wind is now the cheapest source of electricity unsubsidised, and in many environments solar is cheaper than electricity from the grid.
At which point we just have to replace our electricity generating infrastructure in a decade rather than 4-5. Which will be quite expensive but in no way cripplingly so.
Electric cars are coming online and will be cost competitive pretty soon.
What is such a problem?
This is a modification of a previous post. It's all well and good for researchers to think about climate change. To me, it's pretty clear that climate science has the general picture right, even if individual models are all imperfect.
However, I doubt anything serious will be done until it becomes a *real* and *immediate* problem that's undeniable to *most* of the planet. In the past, humanity was able to do things proactively, like agree to limit fluorocarbons to fix the hole we punched in our ozone layer. Unfortunately, forward-thinking and cooperation is mostly dead, at least for the time being. Humanity is currently engaged in a full-blown session of head-up-ass (on multiple issues, not just climate change) and the bar for action in this area is very, very high.
A slight rise in temperature isn't real enough.
A slight increase in storm severity isn't enough.
The loss of one or two major breadbasket regions isn't enough. Food production will just shift around.
Anything that happens in a poor country isn't enough, including starvation. Poor people simply don't count enough to those with power and wealth.
Any effect that is limited to the coasts isn't enough. People will just move.
Any extinctions short of country-scale ecological collapse isn't enough. Most people don't care about plants and critters beyond eating them.
Anything that is limited to the arctic isn't enough. Nobody lives there.
Mass migrations from poor countries won't be enough. Rich countries will just put up barriers and allow populations to die.
Actually, humanity is starting to de-carbonize, but incrementally and not for ecological reasons. Renewables are slowly becoming more economically competitive than carbon-based energy. Will it happen before we change the planet in ways that impede our progress as a species? The jury is still out on that one.
As far as I can see, here are the only things that will force humanity to deal with the problem at a faster pace:
Environmental-related destruction that renders entire cities in the rich world uninhabitable. That level of economic damage won't be deniable.
Loss of enough major food-producing regions to affect the dinner tables of people in the rich world. When steak becomes unavailable, it'll be serious.
Beyond that, it's business as usual. Let's hope that geo-engineering is a viable option, because I suspect that we're going to need it.
"widespread extinction of species on both the oceans and land"
No it didn't. Greatest biodiversity since before the time of the dinosaurs. Next.
Yeah its seriously got to be 50+ given the greybeards and the fox news political opinions tossed around here.
You're a denialist faggot, you do not matter.
just the natural cycling of the planet's climate
How does that work ? What is actually causing the up- and downturns in these cycles ?
Global avg surface temp is 15 deg C (14.9) that gives us a water vapor pressure of 12.8 torr
According to http://www.wiredchemist.com/ch... ..if we increase temps by 8C that raises that to 21 torr.
I rather expect that increasing the vapor pressure of water by 64% will increase cloud formation substantially?
-Styopa
"Smellin' a lot of if comin' off this plan"
Where is the control Earth without humans against which to verify these models?
Has Slashdot outsourced the article summary to non English speaking workers?
"This would see clouds that shade large part of the oceans start to break up"
All you have to do is read it out loud to know it is incorrect..
"Harry Carry"
Perhaps we are in the 7th inning stretch.
If it is an external force, it would have to be huge; something on the order of magnitude of the sun.
a come on, co2 is not evil it's just a scam to collect your money. Do you really believe they can correct the earth's temperature by 0.7 degree, by increasing taxes everywhere, you must be a special kind of stupid.
Remove all plastic and other waste from oceans and the rivers is a nice way to improve this earth.
If you want to make it colder, you can pollute the air more, so the sun doesn't hit the ground. It became warmer because we cleanup the air pollution...
Some people are just ignorant...
If they keep sucking their thumbs , their brains will turn into puss. Oh wait, that allready happened.
How much are your oil and gas stocks worth when global civilized society implodes?
If you want to say global warming is essentially a consensus, I'll agree. But this study is still an outlier. 8C warming is considerably higher than most projections. They say that it's because they included a factor that other models didn't include, but that's going to need considerable confirmation.
That said, don't trust the models when the warming projected gets over 2C warming, as they are then operating beyond the range within which they have been validated. And expect that there are feedback loops, both positive and negative, that will become important in that range which haven't been needed up until now. So saying that it will be considerably worse than the current projections isn't unreasonable. Certainly when not when you include an additional feedback loop. But there are likely to be others that will act as dampers. Their argument against it is that "last time this is what happened", but "last time" isn't a close match against current conditions, so there may be other effects.
All that said, the conservative approach would be to consider that they might be right.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
FWIW, there are two (or more) important caveats.
1) The current climate models don't make accurate predictions. This is so true that what is used is an ensemble prediction, where several different models are run, and their points of agreement is what is used as the working prediction. This gives fairly good results, but clearly shows that the process isn't understood. Either that or it's so sensitive to initial conditions that only the attractors can be reasonably predicted.
2) This is a prediction of a single model far beyond the range of variation within which the current models have been validated. Whoops! Take this as a warning, not as a serious claim.
P.S.: IIUC, the original paper didn't make a serious claim to be more than "This is analogous to what happened in this prior time, so watch out!", which *is* a true claim, though points of analogy are always of dubious validity. (But CO2 levels are a reasonable thing to tie your model to.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Notice how they never say "Will" or "Would" but instead "Might" or "Could" ?
These scaremongers need to be stopped.
What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.
Not true. Presuming the model is accurate it should be making testable predictions about what will happen as the climate chances in the coming years. If the model predictions fits the data we gather well then we have reasonable confidence that it is accurately modeling the real world. Problem is that because the consequences of letting climate change run unchecked are potentially so severe (presuming the model is accurate) we cannot risk actually testing it fully so at some point we'll have to extrapolate and take actions. But we're going to find out at least the early predictions whether we want to or not because some changes are already too late to stop.
Presuming the model is accurate... If the model predictions... I think you have a basic misunderstanding what proven beyond doubt actually means. The only testable fact we have is that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas. If the predictions come true as you say, there could be nothing more than a coincidence. The problem with "climate science" is that there is no testable method of falsification. It is a dogmatic religion and "deniers" are the heretics of the 21st century. The Climatology Bishops of AGW preach our sins and offer us salvation if we just celebrate the Eucharist of Veganism, sacrifice our ICE automobiles for Lent and tithe our incomes to carbon credits.
If they can sell them to people in the United States for more than consumers in China would pay, why wouldn't they export them?
Because they could make more and sell them to both consumers in the United States and in China.
That's the beauty of economy of scale.
Presuming the model is accurate it should be making testable predictions about what will happen as the climate chances in the coming years.
The problem is that they have predicted every outcome. It's not unlike using a program to predict every combination of the lottery and then when the number comes up, claim that you have successfully predicted the lottery.
Oh bullshit. They couldn't predict 7:00 at 6:30. One day we are going to have huge temperature increases. The next day it's the hockey stick graph. The next day we are told "No it's going to be colder in some places, hotter in others." The next day after that it's "No, it's more extreme weather events." And today it's runaway heating that's going to kill everyone. Every day we are given a new story and an extended palm looking for more research dollars.
Talk to me when the weather forecast is 80% accurate 90 days out. or 180. or 365. Climate "science" is a superset of meteorology and physics right? You claim those magic simulations are accurate and predict every outcome, right?
I'm with you. I think resources would be better spent investing in technologies to allow us to adapt to climate change rather than dumping that money into CO2 reductions that may only be responsible for a fraction of actual warming. Efficiency improvements, insulation, transportation, and genetic modification of crops are better solutions to climate change than manufacturing endless solar and wind farms that aren't displacing base load generation. Natural gas from fracking has done more for CO2 reductions than all the renewables development.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Whoosh!
The, uh, Sun?
Climate change is real
So is continental drift. Earthquakes kill thousands of people every decade. I propose a new tax to prevent continental drift and deal with all these earthquakes.
Wow, I think that's the silliest example of whataboutism I've ever seen.
What is such a problem?
No problem. I'm actually more optimistic than you. I firmly believe that as solar panel prices continue to drop, the retail installations will swamp what the power companies are doing. I WILL have a panel installation in my home and an electric car before I retire, because it will be retirement that stands against any stock market bust. Then my kids will use the same panels for many years after I'm gone.
Just let it happen. AOC is NOT the boss, no matter how many wacky ideas she comes up with. Sustainability is not the future. SELF sustainability is.
Want to save the world from global warming? Start convincing people to look out for themselves.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
CO2 isn't going to a damn thing. People think that CO2 is a significant gas in the atmosphere. It isn't. It hasn't been in a very very long time.We're taking about a faction of a single percent here. What man has added to it is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. Increasing CO2 will make plants grow faster. Other gasses are a different story. CO2 really isn't a big deal.
If you want to say global warming is essentially a consensus, I'll agree. But this study is still an outlier. 8C warming is considerably higher than most projections.
Well, it is higher than most projections because this is an effect that kicks in only at CO2 levels way beyond the CO2 levels that most predictive models look at.
Again: this headline is about one sentence in their paper, which was immediately followed by a statement of uncertainties.
But, if your comment is to the effect of "let's wait and see what other scientists think, and whether they,can confirm these results, before we take them seriously.... yes, exactly. Never credit a single study.
How does that work ? What is actually causing the up- and downturns in these cycles ?
If it is an external force, it would have to be huge; something on the order of magnitude of the sun.
Yep. And we measure the output of the sun from satellites, and it's not changing . So we rule that out.
No, that's the good thing about hundreds of independent research groups on six continents making measurements and running models: they don't all use the same set of assumptions and the same data.
Are you sure?
Maunder Minimum
Solar Minimum
I know a lot of atmospheric scientists, and I don't believe I've ever heard one suggest that the current increases in CO2 levels were going to lead to "runaway warming"
Maybe check Google before you post?
Results include such notables as Steven Hawkins:
""We are close to the tipping point, where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus," - SH
MIT Technology review chimes in with another climatologist saying it could happen.
How dare you try to whitewash the shameful history of climate alarmism by acclaimed scientists and celebrities.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Keep on mongering that fear, Climate Cultists.
One day between 25 to 50 years from 'now', for all possible values of 'now', you will be vindicated!
On that day the Climate God will unleash the fires of wrath and retribution upon the humans and sweep them from the Earth!
> The only similar example of rapid warming at this magnitude in the Earth's recent history is the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55m years ago, when global temperatures increased by 5-8C and drove widespread extinction of species on both the oceans and land
Refresh my memory, is this when atmospheric CO2 concentration was at 1600 PPM? Seems to me like life carried on anyway...maybe not all of it, but certainly enough to have plenty of it to this day still. Why *should* every species in existence today survive? Species come and go all the time, including their respective preys/predators. I just don't see it as the doomsday scenario others are making it out to be.
Seriously. No human alive or that will be alive will ever see that happen. We'll all be dead long before that from hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis.
Go read some real facts for once... like years of medical and diving studies that show impairment starting at 600 ppm CO2 (2x pCO2 at STP) and complete immobility or undergoing seizures at about 2.6 pCO2 (480 ppm). Death follows soon behind from the cumulative effect, but near-instant death occurs at about 800ppm.
Don't worry, delusions and violent panic set in long before then (hell, it already did... given how the ignorant masses react to this sensationalist clickbait). Half the planet will most likely kill and/or eat the other half, reducing the bioload.
Seriously, mstrash, the religion practiced by uneducated Marxists (aka Climate Change) is dumber than all the snake-handlers and volcano sacrificers across all time, put together. If they truly want to test the theory, though, I suggest all the commie filth talk to Elon Musk and arrange the first manned mission to Venus. They can experience it firsthand. Just make sure to take a deep breath without the spacesuit on.
Normally you don't consider things with low probability to be meaningful... unless such improbable events can get you dead.
Then it's important, no matter what are the odds.
They do suffer from confirmation bias, however. If my model says there will be no warming, and everyone else's model says there is warming, I "fix" my model until it agrees with everyone else.
Less than you think.
What you are ignoring is that scientists get famous by proving the existing theories wrong.
A group that found a flaw in the current understanding of the greenhouse effect would instantly become the most famous atmospheric scientists in history... and every single one of them knows it.
The trick, however, is you have to find a flaw, and prove it's real. Asserting "oh, I think it's wrong, I can't say why" doesn't work. Finding the flaw turns out not to be easy-- a thousand people have been looking for one for fifty years now, and so far the understanding has withstood all attacks.
See this issue in action while Millikan et al calculates the electron's charge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Feynmann likes amusing anecdotes. The actual history of electron charge measurements maybe sort of shows a progression like that, but not nearly the neat progression like Feynmann suggests, in fact, the very next measurement published, Backlin 1929, was within the error bars of the correct measurement. Graph here: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WtmU...
This is the internet at its worst. Extreme result study not replicated with a mild disclaimer embedded in it. But that is not the story that will get out. All that will be remembered and parroted over and over is the extreme claim that will be taken as fact: "Oh yeah, well a study proved that ..." It's just disheartening but hopefully it won't be fatal.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The only testable fact we have is that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas
AND billions of tons of CO2 produced. try it for yourself : lock yourself up in your garage with a CO2 meter and start your cars engine.
Yes that's why it's called reductio ad absurdum
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
AND billions of tons of CO2 produced. try it for yourself : lock yourself up in your garage with a CO2 meter and start your cars engine.
Never underestimate the douchebaggery of the self righteous. The response to someone who asks for a predictive model that can be tested for falsification is to kill him. This is why the so-called deniers can't take you assholes seriously. it's religion and heretics need to be burned at the stake. It's no different from the fatwas of another extremist religion.
Whataboutism is replying to a comment or argument with "but, what about [something completely different]."
Just because what you said was a non sequitur and absurd does not make it reducto ad absurdum..
They mostly simply are seeking to reinforce their confirmation bias for various reasons.
This was a fun one, as it applies to most of the climate research field today.
The fact that past high profile predictions didnt pan out, and that current ones probably wont pan out either isnt something you should worry about. The Climate Church is still new. Most religions usually stop making prophecies after a while for fear of getting called on them. This will happen to The Climate Church aswell.