... our models of weather on the earth is woefully inadequate, and yet, climatologists insist that we take drastic measures based on this poor information.
Weather models are not climate models. They are two fundamentally different problems. Since climatology is fundamentally a statistical science modeling climate is like modeling the outcome of 1,000 rolls of a pair of dice.
Actually temperatures have been on a downward trend since about 8,000 years ago until the recent sharp rise that happens to coincide with the rise in human burning of fossil fuels. According to a study a couple of years ago we've already caused enough temperature rise to prevent the next glaciation from happening.
The rate of evolution of a species is dependent on the species life time and reproduction rate. Smaller species with short lifetimes and higher reproduction rates will evolve faster.
The issue is more the current rate of temperature change than the actual temperature. Looking at a graph from the study notice how sharp the recent temperature rise is. If you took that rise and spread it out over thousands of years it wouldn't be so much of a problem.
Of course humans won't survive on this Earth without a lot of other living things that we depend on surviving too. Are we going to fix all of them too?
So they're after the money so they can work harder doing science? After all, most of that money goes to pay for equipment and research. Most of the lead researchers get a salary from whatever institution they're associated with and use grant money to conduct the science they were granted to money to produce, not to enrich themselves. They would quite getting grants if they tried that.
... least of all the fearmongers who said bullshit like NYC would be underwater by 2015, that the midwest would be a barren desert by 2020, that the best beach weather would be Canadian.
If you seriously think any climate scientist ever said those things would happen in those time frames you need to get a better source of information. For instance 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100 (what current projections say) won't put NYC under water but it will make the results of storm surges like with Sandy that much more devastating.
Exactly, the thought that the vast majority of climate scientists would falsify the science and not worry that someone will call them out on it boggles the mind.
Back in the Carboniferous era was when much of the fossil fuel deposits were laid down by the biosphere removing carbon from the atmosphere so it was responsible for a large drop in concentrations as well
You may be right but from what I've read it's a lot more likely to be a long drawn out process than an all of a sudden release (although it would be rather sudden on geological time scales). Mostly what I've heard from climate scientists is that a complete runaway of temperatures to Venus like conditions is not likely and many think it's not possible.
The data didn't stop in 1990. The "(AD 1961-1990)" caption indicates that 0 on the temperature anomaly scale is the average temperature from 1961 to 1990 and the data presented is the difference from that average.
I'm as alarmed as anyone about about global warming but I don't think runaway warming of the kind you describe is really possible. After all we didn't have it when CO2 levels were in the 1000+ ppm levels in the past. The things that are likely to happen are bad enough.
What people like you have yet to figure out is that the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Earth's environmental systems. If you destroy the environment you will destroy the economy as it currently exists.
Sigh... The carbon in fossil fuels has been out of circulation for hundreds of millions of years. The carbon you exhale was already in circulation before it got to you. Putting fossil fuel carbon back in circulation is going to change things. The last time CO2 in the atmosphere was as high as it is now was over 20 million years ago and sea level was about 70 feet higher then.
You seem awful pessimistic about the prospects for renewable energy. I remain optimistic. It's going to take 30-50 years to replace the current fossil fuel infrastructure but it's going to happen.
You need to go find a forest where you can get 2 days walk from civilization or do like I do and spend a week floating on a raft down a river. They don't close places like that down at night.
Like you I looked it up on Wikipedia and was confused. The Sunstone article said it was feldspar, not calcite as in the post. Then I dug deeper and the Sunstone (medieval) article says the original sunstone used for navigation was calcite like Iceland spar. I don't know if the feldspar version could be used for navigation or not.
BTW, we don't need the sunstones (feldspar version) here in Oregon, we just have a supply for those that do.
You only exhale that CO2 from food due to - in general - energy
FTFY. There is a lot of energy that goes into growing, processing and transporting food but nothing requires that the source of energy has to be fossil fuels, it is merely the most convenient at the moment.
If the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels could go back into fossil fuel stores as fast as we're removing it the circle would be silly. But unlike the CO2 you exhale that is not the case and it's silly to argue otherwise.
I don't think Orcutt is seriously proposing we put a tax on breathing. He's a Republican after all and they don't do taxes. He just put it out there as a counter to the idea of a carbon tax on fossil fuels which he probably thinks is just as ridiculous.
If the carbon is released on the same time scale it accumulated (thousands to millions of years) then it's not a problem. The biosphere has plenty of time to adjust.
Slashdot Mirror
Sez the guy who has no clue about the actual science behind the study.
Weather models are not climate models. They are two fundamentally different problems. Since climatology is fundamentally a statistical science modeling climate is like modeling the outcome of 1,000 rolls of a pair of dice.
Actually temperatures have been on a downward trend since about 8,000 years ago until the recent sharp rise that happens to coincide with the rise in human burning of fossil fuels. According to a study a couple of years ago we've already caused enough temperature rise to prevent the next glaciation from happening.
The rate of evolution of a species is dependent on the species life time and reproduction rate. Smaller species with short lifetimes and higher reproduction rates will evolve faster.
The issue is more the current rate of temperature change than the actual temperature. Looking at a graph from the study notice how sharp the recent temperature rise is. If you took that rise and spread it out over thousands of years it wouldn't be so much of a problem.
Of course humans won't survive on this Earth without a lot of other living things that we depend on surviving too. Are we going to fix all of them too?
So they're after the money so they can work harder doing science? After all, most of that money goes to pay for equipment and research. Most of the lead researchers get a salary from whatever institution they're associated with and use grant money to conduct the science they were granted to money to produce, not to enrich themselves. They would quite getting grants if they tried that.
If you seriously think any climate scientist ever said those things would happen in those time frames you need to get a better source of information. For instance 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100 (what current projections say) won't put NYC under water but it will make the results of storm surges like with Sandy that much more devastating.
Exactly, the thought that the vast majority of climate scientists would falsify the science and not worry that someone will call them out on it boggles the mind.
Back in the Carboniferous era was when much of the fossil fuel deposits were laid down by the biosphere removing carbon from the atmosphere so it was responsible for a large drop in concentrations as well
You may be right but from what I've read it's a lot more likely to be a long drawn out process than an all of a sudden release (although it would be rather sudden on geological time scales). Mostly what I've heard from climate scientists is that a complete runaway of temperatures to Venus like conditions is not likely and many think it's not possible.
I forgot the /sarcasm tag.
The data didn't stop in 1990. The "(AD 1961-1990)" caption indicates that 0 on the temperature anomaly scale is the average temperature from 1961 to 1990 and the data presented is the difference from that average.
No true American would use the French pronunciation of that word. They're surrender monkeys after all.
I'm as alarmed as anyone about about global warming but I don't think runaway warming of the kind you describe is really possible. After all we didn't have it when CO2 levels were in the 1000+ ppm levels in the past. The things that are likely to happen are bad enough.
What people like you have yet to figure out is that the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Earth's environmental systems. If you destroy the environment you will destroy the economy as it currently exists.
Sigh... The carbon in fossil fuels has been out of circulation for hundreds of millions of years. The carbon you exhale was already in circulation before it got to you. Putting fossil fuel carbon back in circulation is going to change things. The last time CO2 in the atmosphere was as high as it is now was over 20 million years ago and sea level was about 70 feet higher then.
You seem awful pessimistic about the prospects for renewable energy. I remain optimistic. It's going to take 30-50 years to replace the current fossil fuel infrastructure but it's going to happen.
You need to go find a forest where you can get 2 days walk from civilization or do like I do and spend a week floating on a raft down a river. They don't close places like that down at night.
Like you I looked it up on Wikipedia and was confused. The Sunstone article said it was feldspar, not calcite as in the post. Then I dug deeper and the Sunstone (medieval) article says the original sunstone used for navigation was calcite like Iceland spar. I don't know if the feldspar version could be used for navigation or not.
BTW, we don't need the sunstones (feldspar version) here in Oregon, we just have a supply for those that do.
You only exhale that CO2 from food due to - in general - energy
FTFY. There is a lot of energy that goes into growing, processing and transporting food but nothing requires that the source of energy has to be fossil fuels, it is merely the most convenient at the moment.
If the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels could go back into fossil fuel stores as fast as we're removing it the circle would be silly. But unlike the CO2 you exhale that is not the case and it's silly to argue otherwise.
+5 Hilarious!
The CO2 you exhale has a built in carbon offset since it originally came from CO2 that the plants your diet is based on inhaled from the atmosphere.
I laughed but my pedantic self has to say that most of the methane released by cows comes from belching, not farting.
I don't think Orcutt is seriously proposing we put a tax on breathing. He's a Republican after all and they don't do taxes. He just put it out there as a counter to the idea of a carbon tax on fossil fuels which he probably thinks is just as ridiculous.
If the carbon is released on the same time scale it accumulated (thousands to millions of years) then it's not a problem. The biosphere has plenty of time to adjust.