I like the handle riverat since I am both an avid whitewater rafter and a fan of the Oregon State Beavers and it kind of combines the two. I'm looking forward to retirement in less than 5 years.
I'd much rather discuss science. Perhaps you could point out some of those predictions that you think were bogus with proper cites to back yourself up so I know what you're talking about. Then we can talk about science.
I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I'd much rather convince them that the science behind global warming is solid and they should take what scientists say about it seriously. But there are some people who will never be convinced so in some respects they will be forced to accept things they don't believe are necessary.
I think the fact that I just celebrated my 62nd birthday qualifies me to call him son, but maybe he's older than me:)
But also I originally created just a "riverat" account that had an upper 5 digit or lower 6 digit UID but I stopped using/. for a few years and meanwhile lost the password and got a different email address and I could never get the admin to release it back to me. So I have this account/UID now.
I was wondering if someone would try to relate this to global warming. Of course this story is a good example of why it's silly to think climate scientists are falsifying the science. Anything that doesn't match up with reality will be soon found out and called out by other scientists. After more than 60 years of intense study of the climate how often has that happened? I can recall a few instances where errors (rather than deliberate falsification) were made and when pointed out quickly corrected but no instance of actual attempted falsification.
No, the predictions and models have generally been conservative. Too many people fail to pay attention to the time scale placed on those predictions. Too many people fail to understand what statistics and uncertainty mean to those predictions and the effects of natural variations on short time scales. If you go back and analyze what the IPCC WG 1 reports have said about what will happen and pay attention to the time scales involved you will find that in general they are quite conservative.
Good luck with that. The changes to our physical world wrought by global warming will in the not too distant future become so great that people will be forced to change their ways whether they like it or not.
I think you're confusing Antarctic sea ice with the Antarctic ice sheet. The maximum sea ice extent has grown somewhat recently but the ice sheet has been losing ice.
Yea, kind of like if you breath air with 270 ppm of cyanide it will kill you within minutes. Tiny amounts can matter a great deal depending on the context.
You're right, I didn't look at the paper first and I should have. But 100 mW/m^2 is not that far above the average for the whole Earth of 65 mW/m^2. When I said 10% I was thinking about active volcanic areas.
I don't see a real good way to actively reduce the carbon that's already in the carbon cycle. Some suggest making biochar and burying it. It would be possible to some extent to speed up the natural methods of sequestering carbon by exposing more of the rock that can absorb it. My wild and crazy idea about is it that in order for solar and wind to work we have to overbuild them to some extent to account for the variable nature of them. There will be times when lots of excess power is available. We could use that power to actively extract CO2 from the atmosphere and crack it to pure carbon which we bury releasing 02 back to the atmosphere.
In the long run it must be reduced to essentially zero net emissions of CO2 and the faster that happens the less severe the effects will be.
My preferred method of making it happen is a carbon tax. It should start out very low but increment a bit every year until in 30 or 40 years time it would be cost prohibitive to use fossil fuels. The proceeds should be returned in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That way the people with lower carbon usage would be rewarded and people with higher carbon usage would be penalized.
That would impose a price on carbon and let the market sort out the best ways to achieve the reductions.
I'm not worried about the CO2 you exhale or that's in your beer because that's carbon that is already in the carbon cycle and we can't do much about it. It's adding new carbon to the active carbon cycle that is the problem.
CO2 is naturally sequestered on a time scale of thousands of years. If we stop emitting CO2 now there will be some changes in CO2 levels as the ocean/atmosphere balance is restored, maybe 10 or 20 ppm +/-. Then it will take thousands of years for natural sequestering to reduce the level significantly.
1. Make this about science and abandon the politics.
The science is out there available for anyone to access. The IPCC Working Group 1 report is a good (if conservative) summary of the basic science. The WG 2 and WG 3 reports also summarize a lot of science. Or you can go directly to the scientific papers cited in those reports. You could even do a literature search seeking out papers that counter the IPCC reports (but you won't find a lot of them).
But most people aren't interested in understanding science well enough to have a truly informed opinion about it. You start talking about science in detail and their eyes just glaze over. How do you make it about science for them?
Why have the various predictions been so drastically wrong?
That's like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" In order to say whether the predictions (really projections in most cases) are right or wrong you have to understand the science well enough to know what is possible in the first place. Most people saying the predictions are wrong don't have that level of understanding.
The biggest problem with this argument is that our level of understanding of the "climate" system on this planet is miniscule when compared to the complexity of the system. This discovery is just another example. The other problem is that anything that challenges the theory of global warming seems to be either twisted to fit the current theory or ignored. The theory is supposed to be changed to fit the evidence.
This is not a discovery at all. Scientists were already aware there were geothermal heat sources under the Antarctic ice sheet. What this study did was measure the location and amount of heat in the Thwaites Glacier system far more accurately than was possible in the past. In regards to the overall effect on the Earth's climate system this is a miniscule tweak.
As far as our level of understanding of the climate system being miniscule, it's been studied scientifically for nearly 200 years. At this point it appears we understand the big picture pretty well and scientists are moving on the the detail. At this point to expect some sea change in our understanding to overturn the current theory is wishful thinking.
Science is always open to revision pending new information but that doesn't stop us from using the information we glean from scientific study to build this technological civilization we live in. It would paralyze progress to insist that we have to know everything before we do anything.
The scientific fundamentals of anthropogenic climate change, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is one of the major factors in surface and ocean temperatures on the Earth and that the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels is human emissions from fossil fuel burning are about as settled as Newton's Laws of Motion. Hoping for some revolutionary new paradigm to overturn that is wishful thinking at this point. There are all sorts of details that are still unsettled and they are getting properly debated in the scientific community but they don't waste their time arguing those fundamentals.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the handle riverat since I am both an avid whitewater rafter and a fan of the Oregon State Beavers and it kind of combines the two. I'm looking forward to retirement in less than 5 years.
That's me. I never bothered to memorize it. That's low enough to even impress me.
I'd much rather discuss science. Perhaps you could point out some of those predictions that you think were bogus with proper cites to back yourself up so I know what you're talking about. Then we can talk about science.
I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I'd much rather convince them that the science behind global warming is solid and they should take what scientists say about it seriously. But there are some people who will never be convinced so in some respects they will be forced to accept things they don't believe are necessary.
I think the fact that I just celebrated my 62nd birthday qualifies me to call him son, but maybe he's older than me :)
But also I originally created just a "riverat" account that had an upper 5 digit or lower 6 digit UID but I stopped using /. for a few years and meanwhile lost the password and got a different email address and I could never get the admin to release it back to me. So I have this account/UID now.
It was a joke son.
Sorry, my bad. ;-)
This will be a new application for hydraulic fracturing to release the water from the rock.
I was wondering if someone would try to relate this to global warming. Of course this story is a good example of why it's silly to think climate scientists are falsifying the science. Anything that doesn't match up with reality will be soon found out and called out by other scientists. After more than 60 years of intense study of the climate how often has that happened? I can recall a few instances where errors (rather than deliberate falsification) were made and when pointed out quickly corrected but no instance of actual attempted falsification.
How much of that stock is owned by Musk himself?
No, the predictions and models have generally been conservative. Too many people fail to pay attention to the time scale placed on those predictions. Too many people fail to understand what statistics and uncertainty mean to those predictions and the effects of natural variations on short time scales. If you go back and analyze what the IPCC WG 1 reports have said about what will happen and pay attention to the time scales involved you will find that in general they are quite conservative.
Maybe you need to cut some eye holes in it. ;-)
Good luck with that. The changes to our physical world wrought by global warming will in the not too distant future become so great that people will be forced to change their ways whether they like it or not.
It may be difficult but I don't think it's impossible. What's your idea?
Mount Erebus is the southernmost known active volcano in the world.
I think you're confusing Antarctic sea ice with the Antarctic ice sheet. The maximum sea ice extent has grown somewhat recently but the ice sheet has been losing ice.
Nature is unconcerned but I think most people care.
Yea, kind of like if you breath air with 270 ppm of cyanide it will kill you within minutes. Tiny amounts can matter a great deal depending on the context.
You're right, I didn't look at the paper first and I should have. But 100 mW/m^2 is not that far above the average for the whole Earth of 65 mW/m^2. When I said 10% I was thinking about active volcanic areas.
I don't see a real good way to actively reduce the carbon that's already in the carbon cycle. Some suggest making biochar and burying it. It would be possible to some extent to speed up the natural methods of sequestering carbon by exposing more of the rock that can absorb it. My wild and crazy idea about is it that in order for solar and wind to work we have to overbuild them to some extent to account for the variable nature of them. There will be times when lots of excess power is available. We could use that power to actively extract CO2 from the atmosphere and crack it to pure carbon which we bury releasing 02 back to the atmosphere.
In the long run it must be reduced to essentially zero net emissions of CO2 and the faster that happens the less severe the effects will be.
My preferred method of making it happen is a carbon tax. It should start out very low but increment a bit every year until in 30 or 40 years time it would be cost prohibitive to use fossil fuels. The proceeds should be returned in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That way the people with lower carbon usage would be rewarded and people with higher carbon usage would be penalized.
That would impose a price on carbon and let the market sort out the best ways to achieve the reductions.
I'm not worried about the CO2 you exhale or that's in your beer because that's carbon that is already in the carbon cycle and we can't do much about it. It's adding new carbon to the active carbon cycle that is the problem.
CO2 is naturally sequestered on a time scale of thousands of years. If we stop emitting CO2 now there will be some changes in CO2 levels as the ocean/atmosphere balance is restored, maybe 10 or 20 ppm +/-. Then it will take thousands of years for natural sequestering to reduce the level significantly.
1. Make this about science and abandon the politics.
The science is out there available for anyone to access. The IPCC Working Group 1 report is a good (if conservative) summary of the basic science. The WG 2 and WG 3 reports also summarize a lot of science. Or you can go directly to the scientific papers cited in those reports. You could even do a literature search seeking out papers that counter the IPCC reports (but you won't find a lot of them).
But most people aren't interested in understanding science well enough to have a truly informed opinion about it. You start talking about science in detail and their eyes just glaze over. How do you make it about science for them?
Why have the various predictions been so drastically wrong?
That's like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" In order to say whether the predictions (really projections in most cases) are right or wrong you have to understand the science well enough to know what is possible in the first place. Most people saying the predictions are wrong don't have that level of understanding.
The biggest problem with this argument is that our level of understanding of the "climate" system on this planet is miniscule when compared to the complexity of the system. This discovery is just another example. The other problem is that anything that challenges the theory of global warming seems to be either twisted to fit the current theory or ignored. The theory is supposed to be changed to fit the evidence.
This is not a discovery at all. Scientists were already aware there were geothermal heat sources under the Antarctic ice sheet. What this study did was measure the location and amount of heat in the Thwaites Glacier system far more accurately than was possible in the past. In regards to the overall effect on the Earth's climate system this is a miniscule tweak.
As far as our level of understanding of the climate system being miniscule, it's been studied scientifically for nearly 200 years. At this point it appears we understand the big picture pretty well and scientists are moving on the the detail. At this point to expect some sea change in our understanding to overturn the current theory is wishful thinking.
Science is always open to revision pending new information but that doesn't stop us from using the information we glean from scientific study to build this technological civilization we live in. It would paralyze progress to insist that we have to know everything before we do anything.
The scientific fundamentals of anthropogenic climate change, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is one of the major factors in surface and ocean temperatures on the Earth and that the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels is human emissions from fossil fuel burning are about as settled as Newton's Laws of Motion. Hoping for some revolutionary new paradigm to overturn that is wishful thinking at this point. There are all sorts of details that are still unsettled and they are getting properly debated in the scientific community but they don't waste their time arguing those fundamentals.