One thing's for sure. If we don't at some point stop increasing the level of CO2 the problem continues to get worse. It's a long journey to get to zero net CO2 (and other human GHG) emissions, probably 30/40/50 years to build up the infrastructure to that point but if we don't get there we will eventually reach a tipping point from which there is no recovery for human civilization as we currently know it.
No assumption about it. Anthropogenic climate change has already started to seriously affect the world. Many are simply not perceptive enough to realize that yet.
The proof is in the pudding and so far very little that's happened climate-wise is outside of the expected range of possibilities as far as climate scientists are concerned. They're smart enough to realize that if they present biased science then sooner or later reality will expose their bias and make fools out of them. I really doubt many of them are willing to expose themselves to ridicule like that.
Don't think 3 ft is the end of it. That's just an estimate for 2100. With the thermal inertia built into the system sea level will continue to rise for hundreds of years and the ultimate ending point could be as much as 70 feet above the current level (based on estimates of sea level the last time CO2 was at least 400 ppm).
If you're worried about too much government then you should be wanting to do as much as you can to slow down or stop AGW. Once the effects of global warming become manifestly obvious so "the people" start demanding action in sufficient numbers to make the politicians worried the government involvement is going to skyrocket.
The BETTER question to have asked is "Why is global climate changing ?"/quote?
You're pretty late to the game. Those questions were being asked in the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's and enough evidence was accumulated over that time that the IPCC was formed in 1988 to address the issue.
Of course in science questions like that are always open but at this point someone's going to have to come up with something pretty revolutionary to overturn the basics of the current understanding of the climate system.
If you think for a second that will appease the human-hating environment movement, you're deluded. Nothing short of humanity committing mass suicide will ever make them happy.
If they really want humanity to die off then they would encourage us to continue and increase our current degradation of the natural systems that support our civilization. That's going to be the quickest way to to kill off a lot of people once civilization breaks down.
We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place.
The answer to that is you impose tariffs on imports from those places to the extent that their manufacturing processes don't meet US standards. The US is still the biggest economy in the world so it's difficult to ignore it as a market.
And the HP UX server probably had one Sys Admin who only needed to work on it part time while the Windows servers probably require at least 2 of them. I'm Sys Admin for a Solaris system running our ERP system and I doubt I spend even 10% of my time administering it. We have 3 guys working on the Windows network and sometimes they ask me to help.
They said back in the 1990's that mainframes were on the way out yet IBM keeps pumping them out. I don't see Solaris disappearing from our operations until long after I retire.
Weather is chaos theory. Theoretically you do not need much power at all, just incredibly precise and detailed knowledge.
If they have that kind of precise and detailed knowledge about weather then someone ought to tell the National Weather Service so they can improve their forecasts.
The "chemtrails" are right there. You could easily charter your own flight to fly through the trail and collect samples for analysis.
Ah... but of course not all jets are doing the chemtrails, in fact only a few of them are needed and they are randomly disbursed so it would be prohibitively expensive to run enough flights to detect them. (Does that pass the Poe's Law test?)
Don't forget that as the orbit gets more eccentric it shortens the time spent near perihelion and lengthens the time near aphelion. Also the relationship between insolation and distance from the Sun isn't 1 to 1. To quote the eccentricity section of the Milankovitch Cycles article on Wikipedia:
For the current orbital eccentricity this amounts to a variation in incoming solar radiation of about 6.8%, while the current difference between perihelion and aphelion is only 3.4% (5.1 million km).
The cycle of glaciations for the past million years appears to follow the 100,000 year beat cycle of eccentricity most closely.
Both the revolution of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun change over time. The changes in the orbit are driven by interactions with the gravitational fields of other objects in the solar system, primarily Jupiter and Saturn.
What's really funny is all the people who say we're in a cooling trend lately when the warmest year on record was 2010. All I can say is enjoy it while it lasts, I doubt you'll still be able to say that in 2020. The greenhouse effect is still in effect.
Slashdot Mirror
If Anthropogenic Climate Change is a religion then it's an awesome religion because it's got actual physical evidence to back it up.
One thing's for sure. If we don't at some point stop increasing the level of CO2 the problem continues to get worse. It's a long journey to get to zero net CO2 (and other human GHG) emissions, probably 30/40/50 years to build up the infrastructure to that point but if we don't get there we will eventually reach a tipping point from which there is no recovery for human civilization as we currently know it.
No assumption about it. Anthropogenic climate change has already started to seriously affect the world. Many are simply not perceptive enough to realize that yet.
For me the serial number is on a tear off strip that gets torn off before the ballot is put in the ballot box.
The proof is in the pudding and so far very little that's happened climate-wise is outside of the expected range of possibilities as far as climate scientists are concerned. They're smart enough to realize that if they present biased science then sooner or later reality will expose their bias and make fools out of them. I really doubt many of them are willing to expose themselves to ridicule like that.
Don't think 3 ft is the end of it. That's just an estimate for 2100. With the thermal inertia built into the system sea level will continue to rise for hundreds of years and the ultimate ending point could be as much as 70 feet above the current level (based on estimates of sea level the last time CO2 was at least 400 ppm).
If you're worried about too much government then you should be wanting to do as much as you can to slow down or stop AGW. Once the effects of global warming become manifestly obvious so "the people" start demanding action in sufficient numbers to make the politicians worried the government involvement is going to skyrocket.
Weather ~ 1 roll of the dice
Climate ~ the statistical results of thousands of rolls of the dice
The BETTER question to have asked is "Why is global climate changing ?"/quote?
You're pretty late to the game. Those questions were being asked in the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's and enough evidence was accumulated over that time that the IPCC was formed in 1988 to address the issue.
Of course in science questions like that are always open but at this point someone's going to have to come up with something pretty revolutionary to overturn the basics of the current understanding of the climate system.
If you think for a second that will appease the human-hating environment movement, you're deluded. Nothing short of humanity committing mass suicide will ever make them happy.
If they really want humanity to die off then they would encourage us to continue and increase our current degradation of the natural systems that support our civilization. That's going to be the quickest way to to kill off a lot of people once civilization breaks down.
We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place.
The answer to that is you impose tariffs on imports from those places to the extent that their manufacturing processes don't meet US standards. The US is still the biggest economy in the world so it's difficult to ignore it as a market.
Whacking things with a club was probably one of the first forms of hunting that distinguished humans from other hunters.
I can see it now, kamikaze geese. They take out the drones like they take out an airliner.
And the HP UX server probably had one Sys Admin who only needed to work on it part time while the Windows servers probably require at least 2 of them. I'm Sys Admin for a Solaris system running our ERP system and I doubt I spend even 10% of my time administering it. We have 3 guys working on the Windows network and sometimes they ask me to help.
They said back in the 1990's that mainframes were on the way out yet IBM keeps pumping them out. I don't see Solaris disappearing from our operations until long after I retire.
Probably not after the paid lobbyists get done wining and dining them.
You may LYAO but physics gets the last laugh.
Weather is chaos theory. Theoretically you do not need much power at all, just incredibly precise and detailed knowledge.
If they have that kind of precise and detailed knowledge about weather then someone ought to tell the National Weather Service so they can improve their forecasts.
The "chemtrails" are right there. You could easily charter your own flight to fly through the trail and collect samples for analysis.
Ah... but of course not all jets are doing the chemtrails, in fact only a few of them are needed and they are randomly disbursed so it would be prohibitively expensive to run enough flights to detect them. (Does that pass the Poe's Law test?)
:) Yeah, I forgot about that factor, didn't I.
What obvious mistakes would those be?
I know the supposed suppression of papers is a meme on the climate contrarian side but it doesn't hold water as far as I can see.
Don't forget that as the orbit gets more eccentric it shortens the time spent near perihelion and lengthens the time near aphelion. Also the relationship between insolation and distance from the Sun isn't 1 to 1. To quote the eccentricity section of the Milankovitch Cycles article on Wikipedia:
For the current orbital eccentricity this amounts to a variation in incoming solar radiation of about 6.8%, while the current difference between perihelion and aphelion is only 3.4% (5.1 million km).
The cycle of glaciations for the past million years appears to follow the 100,000 year beat cycle of eccentricity most closely.
Dream on.
Both the revolution of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun change over time. The changes in the orbit are driven by interactions with the gravitational fields of other objects in the solar system, primarily Jupiter and Saturn.
What's really funny is all the people who say we're in a cooling trend lately when the warmest year on record was 2010. All I can say is enjoy it while it lasts, I doubt you'll still be able to say that in 2020. The greenhouse effect is still in effect.