But why would we want that shit done? You can't just look at capabilities, you also have to look at what the candidate has done. Here, committing multiple felonies just so you can evade FOIA requests is not the sort of person that I'd want for president.
She's been accused of multiple felonies by the right wing noise machine. I'll wait to see if anything comes of it.
The Republicans problems started with Reagan, the supply side economics voodoo and the idea that tax cuts will cure everything. They happily cut taxes but are too chicken (with good reason) to cut spending except around the margins. As a result the National Debt goes up much faster under Republicans than Democrats.
The single biggest problem I have with trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions. They are an abrogation of national sovereignty. If an "investor" has a problem with a "state" they should ask their own state to argue with the other state on their behalf.
One example is Country of Origin labeling for meat. The US was forced to drop that very popular law because foreign meat producers claimed it disadvantaged them. It would have been too costly not to drop it even though most US citizens prefer the law.
The 2 sigma test encompasses the natural variability of the system 95% of the time. If the observations fall out of that range for short periods it's not unexpected.
The reason to use an ensemble of models is that modeling climate is a complex task and different models have different strengths and weaknesses. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project which is the source of the ensembles helps researchers explore those differences and improve the models.
Your linear formula may fit the curve for relatively short periods but it's still just curve fitting.
Toche. But I wonder how he justifies the statement. I've seen a few studies about the effect of increased CO2 on plant growth but I've never seen any on how much reduced CO2 inhibits plant growth. In most real world situations CO2 level is not the governing factor in plan growth.
An impossible task since there wasn't any one paper that convinced me AGW is real. It's a subject I've been following since the late 1980s. At first I was skeptical but over time the pieces started fitting together into a coherent whole so overwhelming evidence works for me.
You might try Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" for starters. I also recommend the papers cited in the IPCC WG1 report (look for the "All Citations" link). If you're worried about computer models you can download the GISS ModelE code and tell me how it's "cooked". There is code for other models available as well.
Oh there are "difficult" people in climate science. Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Rodger Pielke Sr. among others. I don't call them climate science deniers but rather climate contrarians. They are knowledgeable in the field but take a contrarian view. You need people like that to keep the rest of them honest.
The 95% confidence range or 2 sigmas of standard deviation is a statistical standard in many sciences. I suspect if you check 2015 (and 2016 once we know what it is) against the GCM ensemble output you'll find them very close to the mean.
Sure. Try Y=mX+b with m around 1.5C per century. Seriously. Try it.
Anyone can do a curve fit. Your technique has no physical basis unlike GCMs.
Over 90% of the heat increase from anthropogenic global warming goes into the oceans. Have you checked changes ocean heat content lately? It doesn't take much of a change in the amount going into the oceans to have a drastic effect on atmospheric temperatures. The current El Nino (an ocean phenomenon) is one reasons (but not the only reason) why atmospheric temperatures are so high now.
I'm confident that climate scientists are honestly reporting their findings. The midrange estimates of ECS haven't really changed much for over the past 20 years. If you're talking about Hansen's paper from last year what he essentially said was based on the past it's impossible to rule out large sea level changes on decadal time scales. Given how little we understand about the dynamics of ice sheet breakups I think that's a reasonable statement.
So far temperature rises are still within the 95% confidence interval of multimodel ensembles so they must be getting close to getting it right.
By all we know the current rate of temperature change is unprecedented since at least the PETM and probably before. How well the natural world and human civilization are able to cope with that is the question. I've seen plenty of economic studies that say mitigation will be less expensive than adaption but the longer we wait to get serious about it the more expensive it becomes. I'm old enough (63) that I'm unlikely to live long enough to see some of the really bad things that may come down the road but I do care about the future of humanity.
When current models have past data put into them, they fail to correctly predict.
Right there I pegged you as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Climate models don't use past data as input in any way. Any observations as simply something to compare model output to.
Physics dictates it should read cooler than me, not warmer, and it's not very far away, temps don't vary that widely that quickly.
Ever hear of the lapse rate, how the air gets cooler as you rise in elevation?
There have been no repeatable experiments that show that atmospheric CO2 causes warming. Methane, very much yes, but not CO2. The jury is still out on whether it ends up blocking more heat than it can trap. It *has* been shown that warming causes an increase of atmospheric CO2, which would cause a feedback loop if CO2 also caused warming. A feedback loop that we've seen no evidence of ever actually happening.
How do you account for the fact that the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere is a little less than half the rate of human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Where is all that CO2 going if it's not responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2?
We do not *KNOW* there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We are, at this moment in planetary history, at all time lows for atmospheric CO2. Historically we should be around the average of about 1600-1800ppm. Around 280ppm we would see plant life began to die off. We are damn lucky to be rebounding now. Yes, CO2 traps heat. We rarely hear about the way it does that is a logarithmic effect. The impact of going from 500 to 600 ppm is far lass than the effect of going from 300 to 400.
If that's true then how did we make it through the last several ice ages (glaciations) when CO2 levels dropped down under 200 ppm and yet plants and megafauna managed to survive?
No, what your read is that the amount of sea level rise was 22% less than it would have been without the additional land storage. But there's a limit to how much can be stored on land and how long it will stay there.
In the 20th Century sea level rise was more on the order of 23 cm and it's likely to be at least twice that in the 21st Century. The lowest elevation in Arizona is 72 feet so it will probably take between 500 and 1000 years for the sea to reach there.
There's a bit less of sunlight because it has to travel further through the atmosphere the nearer to the poles you get. Other challenges to agriculture nearer the poles could be differences in growing seasons, particularly for some crops the time between the last frost and the first frost and for perennial crops the coldness of the winters.
Well unless you consider that a warmer climate will increase the total arable land for agriculture... A net positive? How much of the earth's surface is currently not used for agriculture because it is too cold? Also, most areas near the ocean aren't used for agriculture anyway... Farms are usually well inland.
There are areas of the Mekong Delta and the Ganges/Brahmaputra Delta in Bangladesh where sea level rise is already affecting agriculture.
I'd focus on eating land-based foods for now (like the popcorn)... as with sea levels rising there will be less arable land for agriculture, thus forcing us into either becoming vegetarians or primarily eating what comes from the sea which will suddenly have a far greater production area.
Mental note: Eat steak & baked potato tonight while I still can.
With the ocean acidification that's occurring I wouldn't count on an increase in ocean productivity making up for any loss in land productivity.
Do you dispute the infrared radiation absorption characteristics of CO2? If not then how do you propose that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming?
Note that the GCMs have yet to make a single remotely accurate prediction...
And yet the temperature rise remains within the 95% uncertainty range of the GCMs. I'd like to see you point out some technique that does better than the GCMs.
Slashdot Mirror
But why would we want that shit done? You can't just look at capabilities, you also have to look at what the candidate has done. Here, committing multiple felonies just so you can evade FOIA requests is not the sort of person that I'd want for president.
She's been accused of multiple felonies by the right wing noise machine. I'll wait to see if anything comes of it.
With paperless electronic voting machines it's impossible to know what sort of shenanigans are going on.
The Republicans problems started with Reagan, the supply side economics voodoo and the idea that tax cuts will cure everything. They happily cut taxes but are too chicken (with good reason) to cut spending except around the margins. As a result the National Debt goes up much faster under Republicans than Democrats.
The single biggest problem I have with trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions. They are an abrogation of national sovereignty. If an "investor" has a problem with a "state" they should ask their own state to argue with the other state on their behalf.
One example is Country of Origin labeling for meat. The US was forced to drop that very popular law because foreign meat producers claimed it disadvantaged them. It would have been too costly not to drop it even though most US citizens prefer the law.
The 2 sigma test encompasses the natural variability of the system 95% of the time. If the observations fall out of that range for short periods it's not unexpected.
The reason to use an ensemble of models is that modeling climate is a complex task and different models have different strengths and weaknesses. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project which is the source of the ensembles helps researchers explore those differences and improve the models.
Your linear formula may fit the curve for relatively short periods but it's still just curve fitting.
Toche. But I wonder how he justifies the statement. I've seen a few studies about the effect of increased CO2 on plant growth but I've never seen any on how much reduced CO2 inhibits plant growth. In most real world situations CO2 level is not the governing factor in plan growth.
An impossible task since there wasn't any one paper that convinced me AGW is real. It's a subject I've been following since the late 1980s. At first I was skeptical but over time the pieces started fitting together into a coherent whole so overwhelming evidence works for me.
You might try Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" for starters. I also recommend the papers cited in the IPCC WG1 report (look for the "All Citations" link). If you're worried about computer models you can download the GISS ModelE code and tell me how it's "cooked". There is code for other models available as well.
Oh there are "difficult" people in climate science. Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Rodger Pielke Sr. among others. I don't call them climate science deniers but rather climate contrarians. They are knowledgeable in the field but take a contrarian view. You need people like that to keep the rest of them honest.
The 95% confidence range or 2 sigmas of standard deviation is a statistical standard in many sciences. I suspect if you check 2015 (and 2016 once we know what it is) against the GCM ensemble output you'll find them very close to the mean.
Sure. Try Y=mX+b with m around 1.5C per century. Seriously. Try it.
Anyone can do a curve fit. Your technique has no physical basis unlike GCMs.
Over 90% of the heat increase from anthropogenic global warming goes into the oceans. Have you checked changes ocean heat content lately? It doesn't take much of a change in the amount going into the oceans to have a drastic effect on atmospheric temperatures. The current El Nino (an ocean phenomenon) is one reasons (but not the only reason) why atmospheric temperatures are so high now.
I'm confident that climate scientists are honestly reporting their findings. The midrange estimates of ECS haven't really changed much for over the past 20 years. If you're talking about Hansen's paper from last year what he essentially said was based on the past it's impossible to rule out large sea level changes on decadal time scales. Given how little we understand about the dynamics of ice sheet breakups I think that's a reasonable statement.
So far temperature rises are still within the 95% confidence interval of multimodel ensembles so they must be getting close to getting it right.
By all we know the current rate of temperature change is unprecedented since at least the PETM and probably before. How well the natural world and human civilization are able to cope with that is the question. I've seen plenty of economic studies that say mitigation will be less expensive than adaption but the longer we wait to get serious about it the more expensive it becomes. I'm old enough (63) that I'm unlikely to live long enough to see some of the really bad things that may come down the road but I do care about the future of humanity.
If I could use my mod points in this discussion I'd give you a +1 Funny.
When current models have past data put into them, they fail to correctly predict.
Right there I pegged you as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Climate models don't use past data as input in any way. Any observations as simply something to compare model output to.
Physics dictates it should read cooler than me, not warmer, and it's not very far away, temps don't vary that widely that quickly.
Ever hear of the lapse rate, how the air gets cooler as you rise in elevation?
Nuclear's biggest problem to overcome is the fact that it's very expensive compared to most other means of producing power.
There have been no repeatable experiments that show that atmospheric CO2 causes warming. Methane, very much yes, but not CO2. The jury is still out on whether it ends up blocking more heat than it can trap. It *has* been shown that warming causes an increase of atmospheric CO2, which would cause a feedback loop if CO2 also caused warming. A feedback loop that we've seen no evidence of ever actually happening.
How do you account for the fact that the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere is a little less than half the rate of human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Where is all that CO2 going if it's not responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2?
We do not *KNOW* there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We are, at this moment in planetary history, at all time lows for atmospheric CO2. Historically we should be around the average of about 1600-1800ppm. Around 280ppm we would see plant life began to die off. We are damn lucky to be rebounding now. Yes, CO2 traps heat. We rarely hear about the way it does that is a logarithmic effect. The impact of going from 500 to 600 ppm is far lass than the effect of going from 300 to 400.
If that's true then how did we make it through the last several ice ages (glaciations) when CO2 levels dropped down under 200 ppm and yet plants and megafauna managed to survive?
No, what your read is that the amount of sea level rise was 22% less than it would have been without the additional land storage. But there's a limit to how much can be stored on land and how long it will stay there.
Hell, if I owned prime beachfront property I'd happily sell it for top dollar to some fool who thinks sea level rise will never affect it.
In the 20th Century sea level rise was more on the order of 23 cm and it's likely to be at least twice that in the 21st Century. The lowest elevation in Arizona is 72 feet so it will probably take between 500 and 1000 years for the sea to reach there.
There's a bit less of sunlight because it has to travel further through the atmosphere the nearer to the poles you get. Other challenges to agriculture nearer the poles could be differences in growing seasons, particularly for some crops the time between the last frost and the first frost and for perennial crops the coldness of the winters.
Well unless you consider that a warmer climate will increase the total arable land for agriculture... A net positive? How much of the earth's surface is currently not used for agriculture because it is too cold? Also, most areas near the ocean aren't used for agriculture anyway... Farms are usually well inland.
There are areas of the Mekong Delta and the Ganges/Brahmaputra Delta in Bangladesh where sea level rise is already affecting agriculture.
Anything that is currently permafrost is unlikely to become arable land in less than several human lifetimes.
I'd focus on eating land-based foods for now (like the popcorn)... as with sea levels rising there will be less arable land for agriculture, thus forcing us into either becoming vegetarians or primarily eating what comes from the sea which will suddenly have a far greater production area.
Mental note: Eat steak & baked potato tonight while I still can.
With the ocean acidification that's occurring I wouldn't count on an increase in ocean productivity making up for any loss in land productivity.
Do you dispute the infrared radiation absorption characteristics of CO2? If not then how do you propose that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming?
Note that the GCMs have yet to make a single remotely accurate prediction ...
And yet the temperature rise remains within the 95% uncertainty range of the GCMs. I'd like to see you point out some technique that does better than the GCMs.