So you freedom and liberty trump the factuality of climate change? Reality imposes its own rules that no one can avoid. If you really value your freedom you need to live in the real world and not ignore the facts.
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The way a greenhouse works is an entirely different thing than how the greenhouse effect works.
And the oceans have been rising faster than predicted. When you hear predictions like that you should pay attention to the time frame they're talking about. Current predictions for sea level rise by 2100 are in the 3-6 foot range.
Your geoengineering options are merely stopgaps to buy time while we work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere reduces insolation at the surface which will reduce crop yields. Can we afford that? Also it does nothing to slow down ocean acidification which could be a worse problem than global warming in the long run by destroying ocean food chains.
In the past year the cost of solar photovoltaic cells has dropped below $1 per watt. At the rate it's going solar PV will be cheaper than coal before 2020. I've heard of a couple of coal power plant proposals that got cancelled because of that. Don't think that coal isn't subsidized too. They largely don't pay the cost that the pollution from them imposes on society.
It will take 40 or 50 years of work to transform our energy systems so there is no net CO2 emissions but like it or not that's the only way we will control global warming.
Funny you should mention the Bering Sea and not mention that sea ice in the Barents and Kara Seas has been well below normal over the winter. Wouldn't that be what you call cherry picking?
If you really were "more educated and scientific than most when it comes to the global warming debate" then you would know a lot more more about the physics of water vapor than your comment evinces. Water vapor can never force global warming since the quantity in the atmosphere is strictly a reaction to atmospheric conditions. Even forcing industry to condense steam back into water wouldn't make enough difference to matter for the water vapor in the atmosphere.
CO2 was jumped on because of the work of Fourier who first stated that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's, because of Tyndall who quantified the absorption of infrared by CO2 in the 1850's and by Arrhenius in the 1890's who stated:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The idea that CO2 in the atmosphere affects the temperature of the Earth is well over 100 years old.
There's plenty of scientific rigor behind the estimate. There's also plenty of uncertainty (in the scientific meaning of the word) which is why it's not more specific.
You can disagree about the risk thing all you want but that's the way risk management professionals approach it. The less you know about what the ultimate risk is the more effort you put into avoiding it. You can't manage a risk you can't quantify.
120% of warming simply means that there would have been some cooling if not for the influence of the additional greenhouse gases we've added to the atmosphere.
The problem is we don't know how bad the risk is and risk management practice says the less you know about how bad the risk is the more you want to do things to avoid it. The reason we don't know how bad the risk is that we're taking the Earth's system to places it's never been before in human history so we don't know exactly what will happen.
Take a look at the temperature record over a long period of time you will see several decade long periods where temperatures were flat or they actually dropped. Still the long term trend is for temperatures to go up. The animated graph here illustrates the point nicely.
Ok, I take things too literally at times. Estimates from climate scientists say humans are responsible for from 80% to 120% of the warming that's occurred over the last 30 years.
Saying they'll tax your breath is still just silly because it will never happen and I always call it out when I see it. As far as making everything more expensive, the question you have to ask is how expensive will it be if we don't do something about global warming? The longer you put off action on global warming the more expensive it's going to get.
You are right that saying "the scientific community" is a little nebulous but if you drill down to actual climate researchers which is the scientific community in question here and what I was referring to well over 90% of them are in agreement with the basics of anthropogenic global warming. These people are not saying there is no room for argument but you're going to have to give them a good scientific argument that holds water before they're going to listen to you. I have no doubt if someone came up with a revolutionary new argument that explained current conditions better than the current theory they would be all over it. The problem is the arguments that the "anti" side keeps bringing up have all been debunked numerous times and it's a waste of their time to keep trying to answer the same questions over and over. Regarding the specific subject of this/. post, Richard Lindzen and his cloud hypothesis, when he has shown up in the scientific discussions I follow he gets a serious response from the other climate scientists in the discussion because he has some credibility in the field.
Computer models are not fundamental to climate science but merely tools to bring together what we know about climate into a coherent whole that helps our understanding. They are only as good as the scenarios they use are realistic. The basics of AGW are 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is easily measured in the laboratory. 2. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing. Again, easily measured. 3. Human burning of fossil fuels are the cause of the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2. The explanation for that is a bit more complex but the conclusion is not in doubt. So given 1 & 2 it would be surprising if the globe wasn't warming and given 3 humans are the cause of most of it.
If you want to know more about the General Circulation Models (aka Global Climate Models) here are a couple of FAQ's from some of the scientists who actually write them:
Actually, if you look at scientists predictions about global warming for the most part they are conservative and changes have occurred faster than they predicted. Most people don't pay that much attention to the time frame and details of the predictions and think it's all going to go down in the next 5 or 10 years rather than the 30 or 50 or 100 years that scientists are talking about. So a scientific prediction about global warming may seem exaggerated 10 years out but in 50 years it may seem like the scientist was soft selling the real danger.
Regarding your #3, 30% warming would be equivalent to an increase in temperature of around 86 degrees Celsius. 1% of warming which would cause nearly 3 degrees C rise is plenty to cause major disruptions.
Regarding taxing your breath you just show how little you know about the subject by saying that.
Slashdot Mirror
So you freedom and liberty trump the factuality of climate change? Reality imposes its own rules that no one can avoid. If you really value your freedom you need to live in the real world and not ignore the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The way a greenhouse works is an entirely different thing than how the greenhouse effect works.
And the oceans have been rising faster than predicted. When you hear predictions like that you should pay attention to the time frame they're talking about. Current predictions for sea level rise by 2100 are in the 3-6 foot range.
NASA does climate research with data from North America only, not valid on world wide scale.
BwaHaHa!!!!! Do you seriously believe that? And Phil Jones is the only scientist to see the unmanipulated data? What a crock of shit.
Your geoengineering options are merely stopgaps to buy time while we work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere reduces insolation at the surface which will reduce crop yields. Can we afford that? Also it does nothing to slow down ocean acidification which could be a worse problem than global warming in the long run by destroying ocean food chains.
In the past year the cost of solar photovoltaic cells has dropped below $1 per watt. At the rate it's going solar PV will be cheaper than coal before 2020. I've heard of a couple of coal power plant proposals that got cancelled because of that. Don't think that coal isn't subsidized too. They largely don't pay the cost that the pollution from them imposes on society.
It will take 40 or 50 years of work to transform our energy systems so there is no net CO2 emissions but like it or not that's the only way we will control global warming.
Funny you should mention the Bering Sea and not mention that sea ice in the Barents and Kara Seas has been well below normal over the winter. Wouldn't that be what you call cherry picking?
I thought from your subject you were going to blame it on Microsoft.
What makes you think they don't? That's the basis of Milankovitch Cycles.
If you really were "more educated and scientific than most when it comes to the global warming debate" then you would know a lot more more about the physics of water vapor than your comment evinces. Water vapor can never force global warming since the quantity in the atmosphere is strictly a reaction to atmospheric conditions. Even forcing industry to condense steam back into water wouldn't make enough difference to matter for the water vapor in the atmosphere.
CO2 was jumped on because of the work of Fourier who first stated that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's, because of Tyndall who quantified the absorption of infrared by CO2 in the 1850's and by Arrhenius in the 1890's who stated:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The idea that CO2 in the atmosphere affects the temperature of the Earth is well over 100 years old.
The day Michael Moore and Al Gore got heavily involved, I discounted the entire concept of global warming.
So you discount global warming because you don't like the politics of some of the supporters. Yeah, that's a rational position to take. /sarcasm
All that information you ask for is out there. You just have to go out and dig it up.
There is no practical option to stop global warming other than to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
There's plenty of scientific rigor behind the estimate. There's also plenty of uncertainty (in the scientific meaning of the word) which is why it's not more specific.
You can disagree about the risk thing all you want but that's the way risk management professionals approach it. The less you know about what the ultimate risk is the more effort you put into avoiding it. You can't manage a risk you can't quantify.
There are results out there. It takes some digging to find them. The first thing I found was here.
120% of warming simply means that there would have been some cooling if not for the influence of the additional greenhouse gases we've added to the atmosphere.
The problem is we don't know how bad the risk is and risk management practice says the less you know about how bad the risk is the more you want to do things to avoid it. The reason we don't know how bad the risk is that we're taking the Earth's system to places it's never been before in human history so we don't know exactly what will happen.
All that you ask for there has been done. Here are some of relevant links:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/radiation2/index.html
http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Atmosphere/ceres.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_radiation_balance
Take a look at the temperature record over a long period of time you will see several decade long periods where temperatures were flat or they actually dropped. Still the long term trend is for temperatures to go up. The animated graph here illustrates the point nicely.
"Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale", Santer, et. al. 2011 says it takes at least 17 years of of temperature records to separate the signal of global warming from the noise of natural variability.
Ok, I take things too literally at times. Estimates from climate scientists say humans are responsible for from 80% to 120% of the warming that's occurred over the last 30 years.
Saying they'll tax your breath is still just silly because it will never happen and I always call it out when I see it. As far as making everything more expensive, the question you have to ask is how expensive will it be if we don't do something about global warming? The longer you put off action on global warming the more expensive it's going to get.
That silly argument just marks you as someone so uninformed that we can safely ignore the rest of what you say.
You are right that saying "the scientific community" is a little nebulous but if you drill down to actual climate researchers which is the scientific community in question here and what I was referring to well over 90% of them are in agreement with the basics of anthropogenic global warming. These people are not saying there is no room for argument but you're going to have to give them a good scientific argument that holds water before they're going to listen to you. I have no doubt if someone came up with a revolutionary new argument that explained current conditions better than the current theory they would be all over it. The problem is the arguments that the "anti" side keeps bringing up have all been debunked numerous times and it's a waste of their time to keep trying to answer the same questions over and over. Regarding the specific subject of this /. post, Richard Lindzen and his cloud hypothesis, when he has shown up in the scientific discussions I follow he gets a serious response from the other climate scientists in the discussion because he has some credibility in the field.
Computer models are not fundamental to climate science but merely tools to bring together what we know about climate into a coherent whole that helps our understanding. They are only as good as the scenarios they use are realistic. The basics of AGW are 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is easily measured in the laboratory. 2. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing. Again, easily measured. 3. Human burning of fossil fuels are the cause of the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2. The explanation for that is a bit more complex but the conclusion is not in doubt. So given 1 & 2 it would be surprising if the globe wasn't warming and given 3 humans are the cause of most of it.
If you want to know more about the General Circulation Models (aka Global Climate Models) here are a couple of FAQ's from some of the scientists who actually write them:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/
When you cannot refute all the claims the opposition makes you then attack the opposition instead of their claims.
Kind of like the way Michael Mann and Phil Jones get attacked. I've yet to see anyone seriously discredit the science they actually produce.
Actually, if you look at scientists predictions about global warming for the most part they are conservative and changes have occurred faster than they predicted. Most people don't pay that much attention to the time frame and details of the predictions and think it's all going to go down in the next 5 or 10 years rather than the 30 or 50 or 100 years that scientists are talking about. So a scientific prediction about global warming may seem exaggerated 10 years out but in 50 years it may seem like the scientist was soft selling the real danger.
Regarding your #3, 30% warming would be equivalent to an increase in temperature of around 86 degrees Celsius. 1% of warming which would cause nearly 3 degrees C rise is plenty to cause major disruptions.
Regarding taxing your breath you just show how little you know about the subject by saying that.
I don't think "Theory" (in the scientific context) means what you think it means.