If you had ever paid attention to what cryologists have said you'd know that "standing knee deep in melted ice caps already" is ridiculous. Some people who don't know any better believe things like that (I did for a year or so in the 1990's) but it's never had any scientific basis.
The satellite temperature data matches the surface temperature date within the margin of error. Do you know how satellites measure temperature? It's a calculation derived from measuring the microwave radiation of oxygen at various levels of the atmosphere, not a direct measurement like surface temperatures.
Most of the ice sheets that are melting are only 5-10 thousand years old. that means 10,000 years ago it was warm enough that they didn't fucking exist.
What the hell are you talking about? The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are certainly over 1 million years old. It was only about 10,000 years ago that the continental ice sheets on North America and Eurasia finished melting.
Global warming has gone too far to change back in the lifetime of anyone alive today. The best we can do is stop making it worse in 40 or 50 years if we work hard at it. It's a pretty glib assumption that warmer temperatures further north will make the farming better. Temperature is only one factor among many in farming.
There is an analysis of the economic impact of carbon pricing here. It includes links to the original studies. I'm sure you will find fault with it but there it is. Like I said, I think you're the one being alarmist.
When 97% of active climate scientists say one thing and only 3% say another thing I'm going to go with the 97% unless I have some special knowledge of the subject. On top of that the physical evidence that global warming/climate change is occurring around the world is pretty convincing. You're going to have to come up with some pretty extraordinary evidence to counter all of that.
Of course for most people assuming the world is flat is a reasonable assumption at the scales important to their lives. It's kind of like the difference between Newton and Einstein.
Consensus (even if 100%!) does NOT determine truth! History is literally filled with examples of consensus being dead wrong, quite often in the name of "science".
Yet if examine the percentage of times that consensus has been "dead wrong" versus the times it has not across all science I think you'll find it's a pretty low percentage. My guess would be less than 5%. Yes, there are a few spectacular examples such as plate tectonics but who reports when the consensus is not wrong?
You need to stop worrying about Michael Mann's hockey stick graph and work on the at least 10 other hockey stick graphs that have been published since then and that are independent of Mann's work. There's a Wikipedia link that shows a number of these including the original hockey stick but I can't get to it at the moment. I think if you look up "hockey stick graph" once it's back on line you will find it.
All models require initial conditions. You can't just put a model in some random state and run it forward. The results would be utterly meaningless.
Actually that isn't true. Climate models are based on actual physics as much as possible so from any starting condition they will eventually converge on the reality they project. Of course the closer you start to real conditions the faster that convergence is. See the question "Do climate models have global warming built in?" at the climate model FAQ here.
Climate models don't even attempt to predict real world weather. If you think that's what they do you've got it wrong. And comparing the results of a climate model run to the actual results where the various inputs are well known is one of the primary ways that climate models are tested. If you want to know more about climate models here are a couple of FAQ's from the guys that are actually doing climate modeling:
Catastrophic is just a subjective term so I'm going to ignore it. Anthropogenic climate change is a complex synthesis of a lot of different elements and so is not directly falsifiable in itself. To falsify it you need to falsify those different elements that make it up. But I will say, if the decade of the 20teen's is not warmer than the 2000's and there isn't any obvious factor like a major volcanic eruption then I will start to question it.
The IPCC never argued that the Sun has no influence on the average temperature of the planet. That's just a strawman. Solar output has been captured in detail by satellites since the late 1970's and there is no evidence that is has changed enough to cause the change in temperatures we've seen. Further evidence that the Sun is not the cause of global warming is the fact that while the troposphere has warmed the stratosphere has cooled. That is a signature of greenhouse gas warming. If the Sun was causing the warming the stratosphere would warm right along with the troposphere.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are a climate scientist, please publish your data and your methods. Thank you.
The data and methods are published. You just want it simplified enough so you can understand it. That may not be possible.
If you had ever paid attention to what cryologists have said you'd know that "standing knee deep in melted ice caps already" is ridiculous. Some people who don't know any better believe things like that (I did for a year or so in the 1990's) but it's never had any scientific basis.
The fact is very few of the 20,000 people are actual climate scientists. Most of the attendees are there representing their nation in the talks.
The satellite temperature data matches the surface temperature date within the margin of error. Do you know how satellites measure temperature? It's a calculation derived from measuring the microwave radiation of oxygen at various levels of the atmosphere, not a direct measurement like surface temperatures.
The scale of global climate projections is more on a scale of 30-100 years. Anything outside of that range is pretty speculative.
Most of the ice sheets that are melting are only 5-10 thousand years old. that means 10,000 years ago it was warm enough that they didn't fucking exist.
What the hell are you talking about? The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are certainly over 1 million years old. It was only about 10,000 years ago that the continental ice sheets on North America and Eurasia finished melting.
Greenland has never had significantly less ice on it than it has now since the start of the current ice age over 1 million years ago.
That's an insightful comment.
You sound like the stereotypical /.er with no kids to care about.
Global warming has gone too far to change back in the lifetime of anyone alive today. The best we can do is stop making it worse in 40 or 50 years if we work hard at it. It's a pretty glib assumption that warmer temperatures further north will make the farming better. Temperature is only one factor among many in farming.
I referenced an analysis on the impact of carbon pricing in my other reply to you. Perhaps you care to critique that.
You're the one living is a fantasy world if you think we can continue business as usual for any length of time.
Is any economic study truly scientific?
There is an analysis of the economic impact of carbon pricing here. It includes links to the original studies. I'm sure you will find fault with it but there it is. Like I said, I think you're the one being alarmist.
When 97% of active climate scientists say one thing and only 3% say another thing I'm going to go with the 97% unless I have some special knowledge of the subject. On top of that the physical evidence that global warming/climate change is occurring around the world is pretty convincing. You're going to have to come up with some pretty extraordinary evidence to counter all of that.
No, of course not. I answer things like that for the benefit of people who might read it with more open minds.
Of course I meant to say "Too bad the world isn't as simple as you seem to think it is."
Of course for most people assuming the world is flat is a reasonable assumption at the scales important to their lives. It's kind of like the difference between Newton and Einstein.
Consensus (even if 100%!) does NOT determine truth! History is literally filled with examples of consensus being dead wrong, quite often in the name of "science".
Yet if examine the percentage of times that consensus has been "dead wrong" versus the times it has not across all science I think you'll find it's a pretty low percentage. My guess would be less than 5%. Yes, there are a few spectacular examples such as plate tectonics but who reports when the consensus is not wrong?
You need to stop worrying about Michael Mann's hockey stick graph and work on the at least 10 other hockey stick graphs that have been published since then and that are independent of Mann's work. There's a Wikipedia link that shows a number of these including the original hockey stick but I can't get to it at the moment. I think if you look up "hockey stick graph" once it's back on line you will find it.
All models require initial conditions. You can't just put a model in some random state and run it forward. The results would be utterly meaningless.
Actually that isn't true. Climate models are based on actual physics as much as possible so from any starting condition they will eventually converge on the reality they project. Of course the closer you start to real conditions the faster that convergence is. See the question "Do climate models have global warming built in?" at the climate model FAQ here.
Climate models don't even attempt to predict real world weather. If you think that's what they do you've got it wrong. And comparing the results of a climate model run to the actual results where the various inputs are well known is one of the primary ways that climate models are tested. If you want to know more about climate models here are a couple of FAQ's from the guys that are actually doing climate modeling:
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/
Of course burning wood is relatively carbon neutral since it is from carbon that was already in the short term carbon cycle.
Catastrophic is just a subjective term so I'm going to ignore it. Anthropogenic climate change is a complex synthesis of a lot of different elements and so is not directly falsifiable in itself. To falsify it you need to falsify those different elements that make it up. But I will say, if the decade of the 20teen's is not warmer than the 2000's and there isn't any obvious factor like a major volcanic eruption then I will start to question it.
CO2 levels not coming at the expense of oxygen levels ...
There is a measurable decrease in atmospheric oxygen due to burning of fossil fuels. But it's very small so it's not an issue at this point.
The IPCC never argued that the Sun has no influence on the average temperature of the planet. That's just a strawman. Solar output has been captured in detail by satellites since the late 1970's and there is no evidence that is has changed enough to cause the change in temperatures we've seen. Further evidence that the Sun is not the cause of global warming is the fact that while the troposphere has warmed the stratosphere has cooled. That is a signature of greenhouse gas warming. If the Sun was causing the warming the stratosphere would warm right along with the troposphere.