It's not going to cause the extinction of the human race any time soon. I think it's possible it could cause the extinction of our civilization though.
There has never been a model that forecast 10 meters of sea level rise by 2050. I challenge you to prove me wrong. About the worst case forecast I've seen is maybe 3 or 4 meters of rise by 2100 but most now say 1-2 meters.
How long ago was the change from Global Warming to Climate Change made? After all the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. In reality Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change and both terms have been used over time. It is true that in 2002 Frank Luntz advised the Bush II administration to use the term Climate Change as it was less scary than Global Warming.
In 2100, if some of the worst things predicted happen, people may well look back on the global warming deniers with the same disdain most of us look upon Nazi's and holocaust deniers with now.
While I basically agree with your sentiment it's impossible to raise sea level by "a couple hundred metres today" without importing water from off planet. Scientists estimate that if all of the land based ice on the Earth were to melt it would raise sea level by about 70 meters or 230 feet. Even that would take several thousand years to accomplish under any scenario that doesn't involve human extinction.
You're pretty funny. It's way to early to tell for sure how robust the results of this study are yet you're asserting it proves definitively that CO2 can't be the culprit for the current warming. To me it's just another piece of the puzzle to add to the other such studies that have been done. We'll see how it all shakes out eventually.
The reason new refineries have not been built is because they haven't been necessary. How do you think it's possible for the US to be a net exporter of refined gasoline if we don't have enough refinery capacity?
Building new stuff does take time and money but that's true whether it's a new coal fired power plant or a bunch of windmills. The cost of building new renewable power plants is at worst a relatively small increment over building the equivalent amount of fossil fuel power plants.
Oh come on! Please post an example of their vitriol.
Posters of unsupportable garbage get banned and yet I've seen examples of extended dialogs between them and Richard Lindzen over one of his papers. If you can make a cogent argument from a scientific perspective they'll let you post even if they think it's wrong. If you try post long discredited denialist bullshit then you get banned.
Maybe so but there have been a number of other paleoclimate reconstructions using different proxies since that original graph 14 years ago that all support it so the original hockey stick graph, done over 14 years ago, is just one piece of evidence among many. Since it is not fundamentally contradicted by other studies including the one in question on this/. post I think it's held up pretty well.
FYI: This graph of 11 such studies including Mann, 1999. The original hockey stick graph doesn't really stand out from the others and I suspect if you added the Esper, et. al. paper to it that it wouldn't either.
The proxies the scientists used were Northern Scandinavian Maximum Latewood Density proxies. To extrapolate their graph to the whole globe is quite a stretch.
Weather is to climate as an individual coin flip is to the average of a bunch of coin flips. It's difficult to predict the outcome of any individual coin flip but I can predict with good accuracy the outcome of 1000 coin flips.
Don't make the mistake of extrapolating the graph to represent the globe. It's derived from a series of Northern Scandinavian proxies using Maximum Latewood Density. It's just a small piece of evidence in a vast sea of data. BTW, here is the graph in more detail with error shading.
Careful there sycodon, the graph you reference is for one series of proxies from Maximum Latewood Density in Northern Scandinavia. To try and extrapolate that to something global is quite a stretch. Here is the same graph with details and error bars included. As Rei noted the recent RealClimate post is interesting on this subject.
What global warming does is change the baseline that weather varies around. The warming increases the likelihood of extreme hot events and decreases the likelihood of extreme cold events. The warming so far has also increased water vapor in the atmosphere by about 4% which means there is more water available for precipitation. If it's cold enough it will fall as snow. Have you ever noticed that generally the colder it gets the less snow falls? Cold air is dry air.
You got me there. The longest of 3 runways at Sky Harbor/Phoenix is 11,489 feet (others 10,300 & 7,800 ft). At Denver International they have one runway that's 16,000 feet but the other five are all 12,000 feet, not that much longer than at Phoenix. To address another point that's been raised in this discussion, all of those runways at both airports are concrete.
Do you think the air in Phoenix (1200 feet) is ever at thin as the air in Denver (5280 feet)? Just by eyeballing it appears the density altitude in Phoenix at 115 F is about 4,000 feet.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not going to cause the extinction of the human race any time soon. I think it's possible it could cause the extinction of our civilization though.
And global warming itself will have an effect on that as it strains our food production systems. It may not be pretty.
Yet somehow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. The term has been around a long time.
There has never been a model that forecast 10 meters of sea level rise by 2050. I challenge you to prove me wrong. About the worst case forecast I've seen is maybe 3 or 4 meters of rise by 2100 but most now say 1-2 meters.
How long ago was the change from Global Warming to Climate Change made? After all the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. In reality Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change and both terms have been used over time. It is true that in 2002 Frank Luntz advised the Bush II administration to use the term Climate Change as it was less scary than Global Warming.
In 2100, if some of the worst things predicted happen, people may well look back on the global warming deniers with the same disdain most of us look upon Nazi's and holocaust deniers with now.
While I basically agree with your sentiment it's impossible to raise sea level by "a couple hundred metres today" without importing water from off planet. Scientists estimate that if all of the land based ice on the Earth were to melt it would raise sea level by about 70 meters or 230 feet. Even that would take several thousand years to accomplish under any scenario that doesn't involve human extinction.
You're pretty funny. It's way to early to tell for sure how robust the results of this study are yet you're asserting it proves definitively that CO2 can't be the culprit for the current warming. To me it's just another piece of the puzzle to add to the other such studies that have been done. We'll see how it all shakes out eventually.
The reason new refineries have not been built is because they haven't been necessary. How do you think it's possible for the US to be a net exporter of refined gasoline if we don't have enough refinery capacity?
Building new stuff does take time and money but that's true whether it's a new coal fired power plant or a bunch of windmills. The cost of building new renewable power plants is at worst a relatively small increment over building the equivalent amount of fossil fuel power plants.
I think you have an overblown idea of how much it will cost. Most estimates I've seen say something like 2-3% of GDP. That's pretty cheap in my book.
Oh come on! Please post an example of their vitriol.
Posters of unsupportable garbage get banned and yet I've seen examples of extended dialogs between them and Richard Lindzen over one of his papers. If you can make a cogent argument from a scientific perspective they'll let you post even if they think it's wrong. If you try post long discredited denialist bullshit then you get banned.
Maybe so but there have been a number of other paleoclimate reconstructions using different proxies since that original graph 14 years ago that all support it so the original hockey stick graph, done over 14 years ago, is just one piece of evidence among many. Since it is not fundamentally contradicted by other studies including the one in question on this /. post I think it's held up pretty well.
FYI: This graph of 11 such studies including Mann, 1999. The original hockey stick graph doesn't really stand out from the others and I suspect if you added the Esper, et. al. paper to it that it wouldn't either.
The proxies the scientists used were Northern Scandinavian Maximum Latewood Density proxies. To extrapolate their graph to the whole globe is quite a stretch.
Weather is to climate as an individual coin flip is to the average of a bunch of coin flips. It's difficult to predict the outcome of any individual coin flip but I can predict with good accuracy the outcome of 1000 coin flips.
Don't make the mistake of extrapolating the graph to represent the globe. It's derived from a series of Northern Scandinavian proxies using Maximum Latewood Density. It's just a small piece of evidence in a vast sea of data. BTW, here is the graph in more detail with error shading.
Careful there sycodon, the graph you reference is for one series of proxies from Maximum Latewood Density in Northern Scandinavia. To try and extrapolate that to something global is quite a stretch. Here is the same graph with details and error bars included. As Rei noted the recent RealClimate post is interesting on this subject.
Did you ever learn any science? Air gets thinner as it heats up and also thinner as it gets more humid.
What global warming does is change the baseline that weather varies around. The warming increases the likelihood of extreme hot events and decreases the likelihood of extreme cold events. The warming so far has also increased water vapor in the atmosphere by about 4% which means there is more water available for precipitation. If it's cold enough it will fall as snow. Have you ever noticed that generally the colder it gets the less snow falls? Cold air is dry air.
Florida just closed down it's only state hospital specializing in tuberculosis cases on July 2nd. Bad timing.
Report: Fla closed TB hospital as cases spiked
Yup, the elevation at Denver International is 5,431 feet.
You got me there. The longest of 3 runways at Sky Harbor/Phoenix is 11,489 feet (others 10,300 & 7,800 ft). At Denver International they have one runway that's 16,000 feet but the other five are all 12,000 feet, not that much longer than at Phoenix. To address another point that's been raised in this discussion, all of those runways at both airports are concrete.
B-b-b-but it's Saint Reagan's airport!
Yes, but it looks likes no ecological regulation harms legitimate business interests. I see only one solution. We should have a Climate Act stating:
That bill is getting a hearing before a committee of the North Carolina legislature right now.
I believe there have been a few instances of rail lines kinking from the heat lately despite the precautions taken.
Do you think the air in Phoenix (1200 feet) is ever at thin as the air in Denver (5280 feet)? Just by eyeballing it appears the density altitude in Phoenix at 115 F is about 4,000 feet.