Against my better judgement I went and looked at your WUWT cite. It was just more of the same BS I've come to expect from them. As I said above Gore merely reported on research published by Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."This article goes into it in some detail about it. I'll keep wearing my hat, thank you.
Hmm... It seems like you're talking about consciousness only as it applies to humans but to me it applies to most animals as well and it's only different in them by degree, not any fundamental difference.
Consensus is not always right but if you make a habit of betting against it you're probably going to be a loser in the long run. What consensus means in science is that the scientists don't waste their time arguing about something they almost all agree but move on to something that still has room for argument.
The question is if you all think the Cook 97% consensus article is so bad then why don't you do the work to publish a study that counters it rather than just trying to tear it down? It's more valuable to point out "This is how you do it right" than to just say "You did it wrong".
I mean, what are the odds that science could be wrong about a staggeringly complex physical system which cannot be studied in isolation?
Science is generally not amenable to binary right/wrong judgements. It's more about how well your science models the physical reality you are studying. If climate science contrarians want to discredit the current theory it's not enough to just take pot shots at it trying to tear it down. You come up with something that models the climate better than the current theory.
And yet both of those papers did get referenced in the IPCC report. That cuts into the argument that contrarian papers can't get published, doesn't it?
Gore never said the Arctic would be ice free by now. The closest thing I've ever seen to him saying that is he commented that a study by the US Navy reported the Arctic could become functionally ice free sometime between 2017 and 2024. Note that Gore was merely repeating what the study said. If you can cite an actual quote by Gore where he said the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 I'll eat my hat.
The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years. The ecosystem had time to adjust. In the cycle of ice ages we've had lately CO2 in the atmosphere would drop to 180 ppm at the height of the glaciations and rise to around 280 ppm during the interglacial periods. That 100 ppm rise took 10,000 years or more. The ecosystem had time to adjust. Since the start of the industrial revolution less than 300 years ago we've been burning fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate. In 1830 the CO2 level was still about 280 ppm. Now in 2014 it's around 400 ppm. That's an increase of 120 ppm in less than 200 years. If we took 10,000 years to raise the CO2 levels to 400 ppm it wouldn't be that much of a problem. It's the rate of change that is the majority of the problem.
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here [ucr.edu] for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Other scientists in the field who hold contrary positions are not generally labeled deniers. People in the field like Lindzen, Spencer, Curry will not tell you that CO2 will have no effect, just that there are other factors that override it. They have enough knowledge to at least debate intelligently with others in the field. The real climate science deniers are those without much scientific training who think their worldview trumps science when it comes to climate change. It's a waste of time to try and debate them.
Science is never absolutely settled but that doesn't mean we should treat it as if what we know about is is useless. Holding out hope for some revolutionary overturning of science you don't like, especially with no evidence that anything like that is forthcoming, is wishful thinking.
I used WordStar back in the late 1980's on CPM and what I loved about it compared to more "modern" word processors was that I never had to remove my hands from the keyboard to touch the mouse or function keys. It was all there with Ctrl keys. Once I learned it it was really fast for me.
The reason 1979 gets used a lot is because that's when the satellite era of geophysical measurement really got launched. The ground based records goes back to the mid to late 1800's and it's basically been warming since the start (and before) of those ground based temperature records.
My main point is that 17 or even 20 years is not long enough to discern the temperature trend and it can be shown statistically that it is not long enough. At this point it's not possible to say whether the warming trend from 1975 has continued or if the trend has flattened in the past 17 years. Uncertain-T
Yes you're right that primates have been around a while, I was thinking of hominids, actually more specifically the genus Homo which goes back less than 4 million years. I failed to put my brain in gear before replying to you.
Well, the actual number is probably closer to 250 feet than 200 feet. My home at 480 feet will be on an island in the middle of Willamette Sound (Willamette Valley, Oregon). Of course I won't live long enough to see that happen and neither will you because it will take several thousand years for all of the ice to melt.
The extreme hyperbole is coming from those who don't do science. When you really look at what the scientists are saying and the qualifications they put on what they are saying they are mostly on the conservative side. I have no doubt that if he finds his workbooks he will find that he completely misremembered what was said in them.
The problem with your analysis is that over 90% of the heat from global warming is going into the oceans and less than 5% of it is going into the atmosphere so it's not surprising that ocean currents are getting warmer.
The amount of heat it takes to melt the ice that is melting is pretty miniscule compared to the total heat we are gaining because of the excess of CO2. Probably less than 1% of the heat goes into melting ice.
The biggest problem for nuclear power is economics. The amount of financing it takes to build the plant, how long it is before any return on your investment and the cost of the power produced are all things that stand in the way of nuclear power far more than anti-nuke activists.
Ocean levels haven't been constant for the miniscule amount of time humanity has been around, never mind on a geologic scale. For that matter, the climate hasn't been static either, not even for our short amount of time on this rock.
For the past 6,000 years, basically the whole of the time it took to develop our modern civilization both sea level and the climate in general have been remarkably stable. I'm not worried about the human species surviving but it's an open question if this complex modern civilization we live in is resilient enough to survive. If the civilization collapses then a lot of people are going to die.
The real problem is that sea level rise is not something we can stop in any single lifetime. Even if we instantly stopped emitting CO2 today sea levels will continue to rise for several hundred years until the existing ice reaches a new equilibrium. The last time CO2 was 400 ppm sea level was some 70 feet higher than it is today. That much rise may already be baked in and it's just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
Since all of the known natural factors indicate we should be in a slight cooling trend for the past 40 years it's possible that more than 100% of the warming is due to the increase in CO2, primarily as a result of burning fossil fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Gore is not a scientist and I don't pay that much attention to him. (How's that for changing the subject?)
So what do scientists who work on sea ice have to say? If you look at past IPCC predictions of the evolution of Arctic sea ice you would see that they constantly underestimated how fast it would be lost. IPCC AR 4 - Chapter 10.3.3 - "Changes in Ocean/Ice and High-Latitude Climate"
Against my better judgement I went and looked at your WUWT cite. It was just more of the same BS I've come to expect from them. As I said above Gore merely reported on research published by Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016." This article goes into it in some detail about it. I'll keep wearing my hat, thank you.
Hmm... It seems like you're talking about consciousness only as it applies to humans but to me it applies to most animals as well and it's only different in them by degree, not any fundamental difference.
Consensus is not always right but if you make a habit of betting against it you're probably going to be a loser in the long run. What consensus means in science is that the scientists don't waste their time arguing about something they almost all agree but move on to something that still has room for argument.
The question is if you all think the Cook 97% consensus article is so bad then why don't you do the work to publish a study that counters it rather than just trying to tear it down? It's more valuable to point out "This is how you do it right" than to just say "You did it wrong".
I mean, what are the odds that science could be wrong about a staggeringly complex physical system which cannot be studied in isolation?
Science is generally not amenable to binary right/wrong judgements. It's more about how well your science models the physical reality you are studying. If climate science contrarians want to discredit the current theory it's not enough to just take pot shots at it trying to tear it down. You come up with something that models the climate better than the current theory.
And yet both of those papers did get referenced in the IPCC report. That cuts into the argument that contrarian papers can't get published, doesn't it?
Gore never said the Arctic would be ice free by now. The closest thing I've ever seen to him saying that is he commented that a study by the US Navy reported the Arctic could become functionally ice free sometime between 2017 and 2024. Note that Gore was merely repeating what the study said. If you can cite an actual quote by Gore where he said the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 I'll eat my hat.
The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years. The ecosystem had time to adjust. In the cycle of ice ages we've had lately CO2 in the atmosphere would drop to 180 ppm at the height of the glaciations and rise to around 280 ppm during the interglacial periods. That 100 ppm rise took 10,000 years or more. The ecosystem had time to adjust. Since the start of the industrial revolution less than 300 years ago we've been burning fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate. In 1830 the CO2 level was still about 280 ppm. Now in 2014 it's around 400 ppm. That's an increase of 120 ppm in less than 200 years. If we took 10,000 years to raise the CO2 levels to 400 ppm it wouldn't be that much of a problem. It's the rate of change that is the majority of the problem.
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here [ucr.edu] for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Other scientists in the field who hold contrary positions are not generally labeled deniers. People in the field like Lindzen, Spencer, Curry will not tell you that CO2 will have no effect, just that there are other factors that override it. They have enough knowledge to at least debate intelligently with others in the field. The real climate science deniers are those without much scientific training who think their worldview trumps science when it comes to climate change. It's a waste of time to try and debate them.
Science is never absolutely settled but that doesn't mean we should treat it as if what we know about is is useless. Holding out hope for some revolutionary overturning of science you don't like, especially with no evidence that anything like that is forthcoming, is wishful thinking.
Yes, like EMACS. I use EMACS some as a text editor in Solaris but I don't have the proficiency in it that I had with WordStar.
Can you say population control, Hmmm, lets start with the people who conduct these studies...
With and attitude like that we certainly are doomed.
I used WordStar back in the late 1980's on CPM and what I loved about it compared to more "modern" word processors was that I never had to remove my hands from the keyboard to touch the mouse or function keys. It was all there with Ctrl keys. Once I learned it it was really fast for me.
The reason 1979 gets used a lot is because that's when the satellite era of geophysical measurement really got launched. The ground based records goes back to the mid to late 1800's and it's basically been warming since the start (and before) of those ground based temperature records.
My main point is that 17 or even 20 years is not long enough to discern the temperature trend and it can be shown statistically that it is not long enough. At this point it's not possible to say whether the warming trend from 1975 has continued or if the trend has flattened in the past 17 years. Uncertain-T
Yes you're right that primates have been around a while, I was thinking of hominids, actually more specifically the genus Homo which goes back less than 4 million years. I failed to put my brain in gear before replying to you.
Well, the actual number is probably closer to 250 feet than 200 feet. My home at 480 feet will be on an island in the middle of Willamette Sound (Willamette Valley, Oregon). Of course I won't live long enough to see that happen and neither will you because it will take several thousand years for all of the ice to melt.
You could take your fire boat down there and start spraying the front of the glaciers with water. That will speed up the rate of melt.
The extreme hyperbole is coming from those who don't do science. When you really look at what the scientists are saying and the qualifications they put on what they are saying they are mostly on the conservative side. I have no doubt that if he finds his workbooks he will find that he completely misremembered what was said in them.
No, the surface area increases somewhat but not enormously. Oceans already cover more than 70% of the Earth's surface.
The problem with your analysis is that over 90% of the heat from global warming is going into the oceans and less than 5% of it is going into the atmosphere so it's not surprising that ocean currents are getting warmer.
The amount of heat it takes to melt the ice that is melting is pretty miniscule compared to the total heat we are gaining because of the excess of CO2. Probably less than 1% of the heat goes into melting ice.
The biggest problem for nuclear power is economics. The amount of financing it takes to build the plant, how long it is before any return on your investment and the cost of the power produced are all things that stand in the way of nuclear power far more than anti-nuke activists.
Ocean levels haven't been constant for the miniscule amount of time humanity has been around, never mind on a geologic scale. For that matter, the climate hasn't been static either, not even for our short amount of time on this rock.
For the past 6,000 years, basically the whole of the time it took to develop our modern civilization both sea level and the climate in general have been remarkably stable. I'm not worried about the human species surviving but it's an open question if this complex modern civilization we live in is resilient enough to survive. If the civilization collapses then a lot of people are going to die.
The real problem is that sea level rise is not something we can stop in any single lifetime. Even if we instantly stopped emitting CO2 today sea levels will continue to rise for several hundred years until the existing ice reaches a new equilibrium. The last time CO2 was 400 ppm sea level was some 70 feet higher than it is today. That much rise may already be baked in and it's just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
Since all of the known natural factors indicate we should be in a slight cooling trend for the past 40 years it's possible that more than 100% of the warming is due to the increase in CO2, primarily as a result of burning fossil fuels.