C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.'
You're just paying attention to the wrong people. If you listened to actual climate scientists about the subject they don't attribute every weather event to climate change. They just say that when a weather event is embedded in a changing climate that is going to affect them.
Water evaporation is essentially zero for temperatures below freezing. The poles warming from -15 deg C to -10 deg C will not increase the water vapor content of air in any measurable amount.
Actually it will increase the water vapor content. Maybe you've heard of something called sublimation.
AGW is bullshit, and they still don't have an answer to why Phil Jones deleted data requested under FOIA requests. Or why he only deleted it when a judge was going to finally force him to release it.
No, your claim is bullshit. The data in question was deleted in the 1980s, long before anyone made any FOIA requests.
I'm trying to figure this out....they're saying that global warming is going to cause this large storm to stall and dump rain?
I mean, it is moving about 15mph or so now, and is forecast to slow to like 3-7mph once it makes landfall....and somehow this slowdown is caused by global warming?
I mean, that is the reason they're worried about rain fall flooding.....
The effect of global warming in the Arctic is much greater than in the tropics (see Arctic amplification). This reduces the temperature differences going south to north which is one of the major drivers of wind. So the wind has slowed down which slows down the movement of weather phenomena embedded in the wind.
There's plenty of persuasive information about anthropogenic global warming out there. It's just that it's not amenable to the glib sound bites of bullshit artists who spread lies about the subject. Unfortunately the rate of change from AGW is slow enough it's easy to convince yourself it's not happening and it won't affect you. Most peoples attention span is not great enough to keep following what's going on. The world is already spending billion of dollars responding to the effects and that cost is going to continue to go up as time goes on. The climate scientists have mostly been correct about the effects so far. But you're probably right. Many people won't take it seriously until it takes them by the throat and starts slapping them. That time is coming.
Seems to me it would be a good idea to encase the iceberg in a container of some sort before towing it. By the time the reach Dubai any saltwater would be diluted to the point of not being a problem and they would get all of the fresh water to the destination. Build a solid wall that is tied into iceberg for towing with a flexible membrane under it to contain the water. Once the iceberg reaches Dubai all you have to do is pump the water out of the container.
You can call it politics and dismiss it on that basis all you want but in end science has to conform with reality. If you want to change the existing climate science you have to come up with something that explains the reality better than it does. I find it almost impossible to believe that if there were serious holes in the existing science that among the tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world that none of them are willing to stand up and make an issue of it. You posit a conspiracy of consensus and funding that prevents that from happening. If so the conspiracy is the biggest one the world has ever seen and has been going on for decades, maybe since the time of Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s.
As far as Skeptical Science goes, yes there are some pages that are somewhat political in nature but also many pages that directly address the myths about climate science that are bandied about. I find that this quote from the talkorigins FAQ applies to Skeptical Science as well:
Question Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?
Answer We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals.
I get the impression that you are not that interested in being persuaded or you would have dug deeper into the science presented by the IPCC and Skeptical Science rather than just dismissing them out of hand. How much of that is due to your pride in tribal belonging?
Yeah, right. Ignoring something is going to make it go away. Meanwhile the annual costs worldwide of responding to the effects of AGW are already getting into the billions of dollars and it's only going to go up for the foreseeable future.
The beauty of science is that its validity rests in what can be objectively shown to be true. It doesn't matter what you think about it, just what you can objectively show to be true. Criticize all you want but it's not enough without providing answers that work better than the current science. I think it would be fantastic if someone came up with science that completely overturns the current science but with the intense scrutiny that climate science has been under for the past 30 years it doesn't appear likely to happen.
A consensus in science it not something that scientists vote on. It happens organically when a strong majority of scientists agree on some issue so they move on to explore other aspects of the problem. As far as the effect on your career science is one of the most intensely competitive of human endeavors. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong. If there are any serious holes in the current theory you can bet someone is exploring it in hopes of making a name for themselves. But they're not going to waste their time on something that doesn't hold any scientific water.
As far as funding goes most of the government funding process is open with detailed records of what funding has been provided. For example the National Science Foundation has the details for their awards here. If the process is pushing a point of view how come no one has gone through those records to show that? I have to imagine that some have tried that and gave up after it became obvious that wasn't happening.
Yes, politics has had an effect on embryonic stem cell research, at least as funded by the Federal Government but show me the same thing has happened with climate science. All you have is some vague hand-wavy accusations without anything solid to back them up.
No where in that story does it say the data was deleted after the 1980s. The CRU may be one of the leading temperature records but there are several others including the (originally) skeptic funded Berkeley Earth effort. They all pretty much agree with each other. You could throw out all of the CRU data and it wouldn't change a thing.
There has been a huge amount of effort expended on trying to explain the science. That's essentially what the whole IPCC is about. Have you ever tried reading any of the IPCC reports? At a lower level there are web sites like Skeptical Science that essentially does for climate science what the talk.origins FAQ does for evolution. I think the problem is more that you just don't like the answers than that you're getting.
I'm not sure where you got your information but the data was deleted in the 1980s long before any FOIA requests were made. The cost of storage in the 1980s was several orders of magnitude greater than it is today. In the 1980s a 100 MB disk drive was huge and costed in the 5 or 6 figures. The data they deleted was still available from the original sources. They had no reason to keep it.
Of course science isn't in any way a democracy. Scientific findings don't get voted on. They stand on how well they explain whatever phenomenon they are examining regardless of how anyone feels about the results.
There's no bigger oxymoron than "we don't have to explain - we're scientists!"
Just because you're incapable of understanding the explanations doesn't mean they don't exist. The explanations are in the peer reviewed published papers. Science doesn't exist without scientists explaining their findings to other scientists.
AGW appears to be the same. They tell you what is good/bad, you are not allowed to question them because they are "experts" and you are not. However, you can pay them money to be absolved of your AGW sins. With the number of times they have been caught outright lying, I am beginning to believe they desire to become like the Catholic church before the Lutheran revolution.
You can question them all you want. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when your questions have no basis in science or if they're questions that have already been asked and answered.
Do you want massive fire storms? Because that's how you get massive fire storms. If the level of O2 in the atmosphere was 30% it might be impossible to effectively fight fires.
You are correct, the density of ice is about 9% less than liquid water. So adjusting my calculation I multiply the total volume of ice by 0.91 which gives 26708500 km^3 of water when the ice is melted.. Dividing that by the area of 361,000,000 km^2 gives 0.73985 km which is about 243 feet of sea level rise if all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melted. Thanks for making my calculation more rigorous.
Several of those "failures" are for dates that are still in the future so it is impossible to say that they have failed yet. Others of them offer a range of possible outcomes with words like "up to", etc yet the observations are still within the range predicted. Some others like the snow predictions don't take the full picture into account. It's true that fall snow is up and winter snow is holding in there but spring and summer snow levels have dropped a lot. It makes some sense because warmer air holds more moisture which means more snow when it's cold enough to snow. Other things are based on cherry picking. For example the statement that there has been no decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent since 2007. 2007 was a record breaking low year. If you used almost any other year as your base you would see a decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent.
And yet that basic predictions that the world will continue to warm, ice will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and the ocean will continue to acidify keep happening. They may not always get the numbers exactly right but the fundamental predictions have been right.
How much of that ice is on land and how much is already floating?
The numbers I quoted were for the volume of the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet which are both sitting on land. Admittedly a small portion of each is grounded below sea level but it's a relatively small percentage of the total. One cubic km of ice will melt to a slightly smaller volume of water but again it's a relatively small percentage. I was just trying to get a ballpark figure.
What DontBeAMoran said. If the current rate of SLR is 3 mm/year then 1 mm of that is from thermal expansion and most of the rest is from glacial ice melting.
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon climate "science" purveyors, get your shit straight and stop attributing EVERY weather event to 'climate change.'
You're just paying attention to the wrong people. If you listened to actual climate scientists about the subject they don't attribute every weather event to climate change. They just say that when a weather event is embedded in a changing climate that is going to affect them.
Water evaporation is essentially zero for temperatures below freezing. The poles warming from -15 deg C to -10 deg C will not increase the water vapor content of air in any measurable amount.
Actually it will increase the water vapor content. Maybe you've heard of something called sublimation.
An excellent explanation. +1 Informative.
AGW is bullshit, and they still don't have an answer to why Phil Jones deleted data requested under FOIA requests. Or why he only deleted it when a judge was going to finally force him to release it.
No, your claim is bullshit. The data in question was deleted in the 1980s, long before anyone made any FOIA requests.
I'm trying to figure this out....they're saying that global warming is going to cause this large storm to stall and dump rain?
I mean, it is moving about 15mph or so now, and is forecast to slow to like 3-7mph once it makes landfall....and somehow this slowdown is caused by global warming?
I mean, that is the reason they're worried about rain fall flooding.....
The effect of global warming in the Arctic is much greater than in the tropics (see Arctic amplification). This reduces the temperature differences going south to north which is one of the major drivers of wind. So the wind has slowed down which slows down the movement of weather phenomena embedded in the wind.
There's plenty of persuasive information about anthropogenic global warming out there. It's just that it's not amenable to the glib sound bites of bullshit artists who spread lies about the subject. Unfortunately the rate of change from AGW is slow enough it's easy to convince yourself it's not happening and it won't affect you. Most peoples attention span is not great enough to keep following what's going on. The world is already spending billion of dollars responding to the effects and that cost is going to continue to go up as time goes on. The climate scientists have mostly been correct about the effects so far. But you're probably right. Many people won't take it seriously until it takes them by the throat and starts slapping them. That time is coming.
Once it's in iceberg form floating in the ocean it's already out of the equation. It will be melting away in a few years anyway.
Once the ice is in iceberg form floating on the ocean it's as good as gone anyway. It's just a matter of how fast it's going to melt.
Seems to me it would be a good idea to encase the iceberg in a container of some sort before towing it. By the time the reach Dubai any saltwater would be diluted to the point of not being a problem and they would get all of the fresh water to the destination. Build a solid wall that is tied into iceberg for towing with a flexible membrane under it to contain the water. Once the iceberg reaches Dubai all you have to do is pump the water out of the container.
You can call it politics and dismiss it on that basis all you want but in end science has to conform with reality. If you want to change the existing climate science you have to come up with something that explains the reality better than it does. I find it almost impossible to believe that if there were serious holes in the existing science that among the tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world that none of them are willing to stand up and make an issue of it. You posit a conspiracy of consensus and funding that prevents that from happening. If so the conspiracy is the biggest one the world has ever seen and has been going on for decades, maybe since the time of Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s.
As far as Skeptical Science goes, yes there are some pages that are somewhat political in nature but also many pages that directly address the myths about climate science that are bandied about. I find that this quote from the talkorigins FAQ applies to Skeptical Science as well:
Question Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?
Answer We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals.
I get the impression that you are not that interested in being persuaded or you would have dug deeper into the science presented by the IPCC and Skeptical Science rather than just dismissing them out of hand. How much of that is due to your pride in tribal belonging?
Yeah, right. Ignoring something is going to make it go away. Meanwhile the annual costs worldwide of responding to the effects of AGW are already getting into the billions of dollars and it's only going to go up for the foreseeable future.
The beauty of science is that its validity rests in what can be objectively shown to be true. It doesn't matter what you think about it, just what you can objectively show to be true. Criticize all you want but it's not enough without providing answers that work better than the current science. I think it would be fantastic if someone came up with science that completely overturns the current science but with the intense scrutiny that climate science has been under for the past 30 years it doesn't appear likely to happen.
A consensus in science it not something that scientists vote on. It happens organically when a strong majority of scientists agree on some issue so they move on to explore other aspects of the problem. As far as the effect on your career science is one of the most intensely competitive of human endeavors. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong. If there are any serious holes in the current theory you can bet someone is exploring it in hopes of making a name for themselves. But they're not going to waste their time on something that doesn't hold any scientific water.
As far as funding goes most of the government funding process is open with detailed records of what funding has been provided. For example the National Science Foundation has the details for their awards here. If the process is pushing a point of view how come no one has gone through those records to show that? I have to imagine that some have tried that and gave up after it became obvious that wasn't happening.
Yes, politics has had an effect on embryonic stem cell research, at least as funded by the Federal Government but show me the same thing has happened with climate science. All you have is some vague hand-wavy accusations without anything solid to back them up.
No where in that story does it say the data was deleted after the 1980s. The CRU may be one of the leading temperature records but there are several others including the (originally) skeptic funded Berkeley Earth effort. They all pretty much agree with each other. You could throw out all of the CRU data and it wouldn't change a thing.
There has been a huge amount of effort expended on trying to explain the science. That's essentially what the whole IPCC is about. Have you ever tried reading any of the IPCC reports? At a lower level there are web sites like Skeptical Science that essentially does for climate science what the talk.origins FAQ does for evolution. I think the problem is more that you just don't like the answers than that you're getting.
I'm not sure where you got your information but the data was deleted in the 1980s long before any FOIA requests were made. The cost of storage in the 1980s was several orders of magnitude greater than it is today. In the 1980s a 100 MB disk drive was huge and costed in the 5 or 6 figures. The data they deleted was still available from the original sources. They had no reason to keep it.
Of course science isn't in any way a democracy. Scientific findings don't get voted on. They stand on how well they explain whatever phenomenon they are examining regardless of how anyone feels about the results.
There's no bigger oxymoron than "we don't have to explain - we're scientists!"
Just because you're incapable of understanding the explanations doesn't mean they don't exist. The explanations are in the peer reviewed published papers. Science doesn't exist without scientists explaining their findings to other scientists.
AGW appears to be the same. They tell you what is good/bad, you are not allowed to question them because they are "experts" and you are not. However, you can pay them money to be absolved of your AGW sins. With the number of times they have been caught outright lying, I am beginning to believe they desire to become like the Catholic church before the Lutheran revolution.
You can question them all you want. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when your questions have no basis in science or if they're questions that have already been asked and answered.
Do you want massive fire storms? Because that's how you get massive fire storms. If the level of O2 in the atmosphere was 30% it might be impossible to effectively fight fires.
You are correct, the density of ice is about 9% less than liquid water. So adjusting my calculation I multiply the total volume of ice by 0.91 which gives 26708500 km^3 of water when the ice is melted.. Dividing that by the area of 361,000,000 km^2 gives 0.73985 km which is about 243 feet of sea level rise if all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melted. Thanks for making my calculation more rigorous.
Several of those "failures" are for dates that are still in the future so it is impossible to say that they have failed yet. Others of them offer a range of possible outcomes with words like "up to", etc yet the observations are still within the range predicted. Some others like the snow predictions don't take the full picture into account. It's true that fall snow is up and winter snow is holding in there but spring and summer snow levels have dropped a lot. It makes some sense because warmer air holds more moisture which means more snow when it's cold enough to snow. Other things are based on cherry picking. For example the statement that there has been no decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent since 2007. 2007 was a record breaking low year. If you used almost any other year as your base you would see a decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent.
And yet that basic predictions that the world will continue to warm, ice will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and the ocean will continue to acidify keep happening. They may not always get the numbers exactly right but the fundamental predictions have been right.
That is true. Also in the equation you have to subtract any water that gets stored behind dams.
How much of that ice is on land and how much is already floating?
The numbers I quoted were for the volume of the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet which are both sitting on land. Admittedly a small portion of each is grounded below sea level but it's a relatively small percentage of the total. One cubic km of ice will melt to a slightly smaller volume of water but again it's a relatively small percentage. I was just trying to get a ballpark figure.
What DontBeAMoran said. If the current rate of SLR is 3 mm/year then 1 mm of that is from thermal expansion and most of the rest is from glacial ice melting.