Obviously the authors of this piece missed the memo. Our interglacial is about done and we are going back into a glaciated state that will cause widespread colder and dryer climate and failing crops and no amount of CO2 will prevent that.
I'm sorry to tell you that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to prevent a new glaciation. The next ice age has been postponed for the foreseeable future.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements? First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted.
"Least adjusted" my ass! They measure the microwave emissions of O2 molecules throughout the atmosphere and only after a lot of convoluted calculations do they come up with temperatures for amorphous blobs of the atmosphere. The have to make adjustments for new satellites every few years, for changes in the orbits of those satellites, for the gradual deterioration of the sensors and for the effects of high elevation and clouds on the measurements.
Even Dr. Mears said he trusts the surface temperature measurements more than the satellite measurements.
You just like the satellite measurements because you think what they show is closer to what you'd like to see.
First, we need to put an immediate stop to the UAH and RSS satellite measurements of surface temperature,...
Of course the satellite measurements are not measuring the surface temperature but rather the lower troposphere which is a rather amorphous blob somewhere above the surface. And if you think they're adjusting the hell out of surface temperature measurements you should see what they have to do to derive temperatures from measurements of microwave emissions of O2 molecules. The satellites are replaced every 5 - 7 years, they have decaying orbits and the sensors decay over time.
This is already underway, as Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn for his aspersions about the hockey stick.
Mann is suing Steyn for comparing him to Jerry Sandusky and accusing him of scientific fraud.
So what does the reduction in sunlight hitting the Earth from your proposal do to photosynthesis? What is the reduction in productivity of plants from the reduced sunlight?
The average insolation for the Earth is 21.6 MJ/m^2. The Earth's surface is 5.1e+14 square meters. The energy in the Hiroshima bomb was 6.3x10^13 Joules. I'll let you do the math as to how the energy of a Hiroshima bomb compares to the energy coming from the Sun.
That's one of the many reason the LYING, money-sucking "Climatologists" had to drop the moniker "Global Warming" in favor of the "Well, we can always claim it" name "Climate Change".
For the origins of the term "Climate Change" you can look to Gilbert Plass's 1956 paper "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
> This is no pissing contest, this is called 'hard experimental evidence'.
This is called "a single data point". Hurricanes have been down in recent years.
It's also something like a single data point if you only count hurricanes that hit the US mainland. It would make more sense to look at hurricanes basin-wide or even tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons) world-wide to understand what is really happening.
Newton's Laws of Motion were settled science until they weren't when Einstein came along. That doesn't mean they were wrong, just that they have more limited applicability than originally thought.
First of all, CO2 is essential to the continuance of life (via photosynthesis) on Earth. In fact, the levels of CO2 were nearing the point of producing another mass extinction given the fact that if the CO2 levels ever dropped below 150 ppm, all life would die.
Tell me something I don't know. For at least the past 650,000 years and probably much longer the CO2 level has varied between about 180 ppm and 280 ppm. Plant life and photosynthesis seemed to get along just fine at those levels. No one is proposing to take CO2 levels below 280 ppm, in fact levels from 300 to 320 ppm might be about right considering that Milankovitch Cycles are slow dragging us back toward a new glaciation (aka ice age).
Second, the rise in co2 has always followed the rise in temperature otherwise we would be living in an environment resembling the surface of the Sun.
Why do you think that? I guess you must be thinking that since CO2 is a feedback of temperature rise if CO2 preceded temperature rise that the feedback would lead to runaway warming but there is a limited amount of carbon available for that feedback so it can't runaway.
Third, the levels of CO2 used to be in the THOUSANDS of ppm when life first began and has been consistently dropping ever since. Hence the reason why so much coal and oil exists as most plant life over millions of years has sucked it all out of the atmosphere and into the ground - in layman terms.
Again tell me something I don't know. The life around now is adjusted for the current level of CO2.
Forth, not a single climatologist has accurately predicted the climate OTHERWISE it would have been elevated to THEORY. But as it all stands, all of your alarmist rhetoric remains nothing more than a HYPOTHESIS.
What is your criteria for accuracy in climate predictions? The projections of climate models may not meet your criteria but they've gotten more right than wrong.
Well if you base the start of 'climate change' on the mid 19th century, then yes, it has been rising. But on geological time scale, spanning billions of years, it has been plummeting, and is continuing to drop as we speak. In fact, nearly all mass extinctions can be directly linked to decreased global average temperatures (and CO2). While periods of increased heating (and CO2) has resulted in booms in life/evolution. I mean, are you trying to reject that the Earth originally started out as a super massive jungle with no ice caps? If so, then you're the denialist since that is the THEORY which most if not all scientists accept currently.
Mass extinctions have a variety of causes, both warming and cooling. One of them appears to be flood basalt eruptions (like the Siberian and Deccan Traps) which cause global warming. The issue isn't so much that the climate is changing but that it's changing faster than life can adapt. Either warmer or colder that's was causes mass extinctions.
So what? You know, I guess civilization fu%^ed up by basing our cities so close to sea. Live and learn. But guess what, the amount of melt that's coming off glaciers per year is no where near the amount of water humans consume per month. Not to mention, as more and more desalination plants spring up, the more we decrease the rate of sea rise.
Of course most of the water that humans consume is back in the water cycle in short order so it makes little difference to sea level rise. Same thing with desalination plants. The water they produce won't be sequestered away from the oceans for any length of time either. Sea level rise may be a slow process but it's probably unstoppable on human time scales. 100 years from now Miami, Florida will most likely be abandoned because of it.
They fluctuate quiet rapidly actually and life is pretty quick to adapt to it according to most studies...and no, CO2 has nothing to do with it
The wildly squiggly graphs are individual model runs which have as much variability as weather. Only when you take a bunch of model runs and average them together do you get the nice smooth lines you usually see. I think Spenser used those just to increase the confusion of unsophisticated viewers.
You might as well give up on mi. I don't think he has the scientific chops to understand any of it anyway. I've taken to mocking him in our interactions.
Sheesh! It's like I have to lead you like a toddler. When I said 9.3 I meant the whole thing. If you had any interest in actually finding out you would have found section 9.3.3 which has graphs that the ones in the IOP paper I linked to are derived from. But in the IOP paper they only used the projections up to 2015 whereas the IPCC report goes out to 2100 so it's a little difficult to compare them. Even if I lead you directly to the original source data for the IPCC at the CMIP project the numbers would just overwhelm you since I doubt you have the scientific chops to understand them. It's difficult enough for me too but with enough work I could get there though it would probably take me several weeks.
(Grumble, grumble. Either this guy's too lazy to to do his own search or he's too stupid to use the internet.)
The IPCC reports are large complex reports and maybe you're having trouble drilling down to the pertinent sections. I'll help you find them but the IPCC reports are not amenable to simple quoting and sound bites so you'll have to read them to understand what the projections are.
Several times I've pointed out to you a scientific paper [...] You reject it since it is not in your required format
Those several times should've been enough for you to understand the point: predictions lauded after coming true aren't acceptable. That — despite several months of being challenged, you remain unable to come up with a prediction publicized before its "success", tells everyone, that no such predictions exist.
WTF are you talking about? The projections in that paper were made in the IPCC AR3 (2001) and IPCC AR4 (2007) which were published well before the paper was written. You can read those reports to verify that.
I just don't see any good reasons to disbelieve the climate scientists.
Well, the obvious conflict of interest would be one reason — if climate is not a problem, there go their grants and the very employment. But even besides such dark suspicions, their seeming inability to make a falsifiable statement, that is not eventually falsified, is a reason for scepticism in itself.
If there were no global warming we would still be studying climate and scientists would still be getting grants to do so. Maybe the attention to the subject has increased the money going into it but by no means would there be no grants for study of climate if AGW wasn't happening.
The truth remains — there have not been many climate-related predictions published, that came true in due time. In fact, I can't find even a single one such prediction, but there really ought to be many by now. We see new ones made in the press quite often...
Several times I've pointed out to you a scientific paper that compares temperature and sea level rise projections to observations up to 2011. Link You reject it since it is not in your required format. That's arguing like a lawyer not a scientist. You should care more about the information that is presented than how it's formatted.
In the realm of more general predictions scientists have said that increased CO2 would cause temperatures to rise. Temperatures on the Earth have risen and continue to rise. They said that the warming would cause land and sea based ice to melt. Land and sea based ice has melted. They said the combination of melting land based ice and warming oceans would cause sea level to rise. Sea level is rising (over 3 inches since 1993) and continues to rise. They said that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would cause ocean acidification. The oceans continue to acidify.
You can argue about it all you like but the real world and physics just doesn't care. It will do what it will do regardless of your (or my) feelings. I just don't see any good reasons to disbelieve the climate scientists.
I have respect for Freeman Dyson and would not call him a climate science denier but a "lukewarmer". He admits that increased CO2 will have effects but doesn't think they will be so bad that it won't be a major disruption to our civilization. I think he is wrong in that judgement and wish he'd take the time for some deep talk with actual climatologists but he may be to set in his ways for that to have an effect.
Presumably if I had got thyroid cancer at a young age I would know it by now at the age of 63. I don't think I've ever been screened for thyroid cancer but of course during my yearly check-ups the doctor does palpate my thyroids to see if they're swollen and does check my level of thyroid hormones in the blood screenings. I don't know how long you can have thyroid cancer and not have it diagnosed but I doubt it's more than a few years.
When you're idling along like that it's more difficult for the catalytic converter to get hot enough to burn those hydrocarbons so more of them go out the tailpipe.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously the authors of this piece missed the memo. Our interglacial is about done and we are going back into a glaciated state that will cause widespread colder and dryer climate and failing crops and no amount of CO2 will prevent that.
I'm sorry to tell you that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to prevent a new glaciation. The next ice age has been postponed for the foreseeable future.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted.
"Least adjusted" my ass! They measure the microwave emissions of O2 molecules throughout the atmosphere and only after a lot of convoluted calculations do they come up with temperatures for amorphous blobs of the atmosphere. The have to make adjustments for new satellites every few years, for changes in the orbits of those satellites, for the gradual deterioration of the sensors and for the effects of high elevation and clouds on the measurements.
Even Dr. Mears said he trusts the surface temperature measurements more than the satellite measurements.
You just like the satellite measurements because you think what they show is closer to what you'd like to see.
First, we need to put an immediate stop to the UAH and RSS satellite measurements of surface temperature, ...
Of course the satellite measurements are not measuring the surface temperature but rather the lower troposphere which is a rather amorphous blob somewhere above the surface. And if you think they're adjusting the hell out of surface temperature measurements you should see what they have to do to derive temperatures from measurements of microwave emissions of O2 molecules. The satellites are replaced every 5 - 7 years, they have decaying orbits and the sensors decay over time.
This is already underway, as Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn for his aspersions about the hockey stick.
Mann is suing Steyn for comparing him to Jerry Sandusky and accusing him of scientific fraud.
So what does the reduction in sunlight hitting the Earth from your proposal do to photosynthesis? What is the reduction in productivity of plants from the reduced sunlight?
Yeah, where's my Social Security and Medicare?
I was going to say. I was born in 1952 and I'm not 67 yet.
Thanks for the laugh. The NIPCC report is a joke.
The average insolation for the Earth is 21.6 MJ/m^2. The Earth's surface is 5.1e+14 square meters. The energy in the Hiroshima bomb was 6.3x10^13 Joules. I'll let you do the math as to how the energy of a Hiroshima bomb compares to the energy coming from the Sun.
That's one of the many reason the LYING, money-sucking "Climatologists" had to drop the moniker "Global Warming" in favor of the "Well, we can always claim it" name "Climate Change".
For the origins of the term "Climate Change" you can look to Gilbert Plass's 1956 paper "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
> This is no pissing contest, this is called 'hard experimental evidence'.
This is called "a single data point". Hurricanes have been down in recent years.
It's also something like a single data point if you only count hurricanes that hit the US mainland. It would make more sense to look at hurricanes basin-wide or even tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons) world-wide to understand what is really happening.
It's probably older than you are.
Newton's Laws of Motion were settled science until they weren't when Einstein came along. That doesn't mean they were wrong, just that they have more limited applicability than originally thought.
First of all, CO2 is essential to the continuance of life (via photosynthesis) on Earth. In fact, the levels of CO2 were nearing the point of producing another mass extinction given the fact that if the CO2 levels ever dropped below 150 ppm, all life would die.
Tell me something I don't know. For at least the past 650,000 years and probably much longer the CO2 level has varied between about 180 ppm and 280 ppm. Plant life and photosynthesis seemed to get along just fine at those levels. No one is proposing to take CO2 levels below 280 ppm, in fact levels from 300 to 320 ppm might be about right considering that Milankovitch Cycles are slow dragging us back toward a new glaciation (aka ice age).
Second, the rise in co2 has always followed the rise in temperature otherwise we would be living in an environment resembling the surface of the Sun.
Why do you think that? I guess you must be thinking that since CO2 is a feedback of temperature rise if CO2 preceded temperature rise that the feedback would lead to runaway warming but there is a limited amount of carbon available for that feedback so it can't runaway.
Third, the levels of CO2 used to be in the THOUSANDS of ppm when life first began and has been consistently dropping ever since. Hence the reason why so much coal and oil exists as most plant life over millions of years has sucked it all out of the atmosphere and into the ground - in layman terms.
Again tell me something I don't know. The life around now is adjusted for the current level of CO2.
Forth, not a single climatologist has accurately predicted the climate OTHERWISE it would have been elevated to THEORY. But as it all stands, all of your alarmist rhetoric remains nothing more than a HYPOTHESIS.
What is your criteria for accuracy in climate predictions? The projections of climate models may not meet your criteria but they've gotten more right than wrong.
Well if you base the start of 'climate change' on the mid 19th century, then yes, it has been rising. But on geological time scale, spanning billions of years, it has been plummeting, and is continuing to drop as we speak. In fact, nearly all mass extinctions can be directly linked to decreased global average temperatures (and CO2). While periods of increased heating (and CO2) has resulted in booms in life/evolution. I mean, are you trying to reject that the Earth originally started out as a super massive jungle with no ice caps? If so, then you're the denialist since that is the THEORY which most if not all scientists accept currently.
Mass extinctions have a variety of causes, both warming and cooling. One of them appears to be flood basalt eruptions (like the Siberian and Deccan Traps) which cause global warming. The issue isn't so much that the climate is changing but that it's changing faster than life can adapt. Either warmer or colder that's was causes mass extinctions.
So what? You know, I guess civilization fu%^ed up by basing our cities so close to sea. Live and learn. But guess what, the amount of melt that's coming off glaciers per year is no where near the amount of water humans consume per month. Not to mention, as more and more desalination plants spring up, the more we decrease the rate of sea rise.
Of course most of the water that humans consume is back in the water cycle in short order so it makes little difference to sea level rise. Same thing with desalination plants. The water they produce won't be sequestered away from the oceans for any length of time either. Sea level rise may be a slow process but it's probably unstoppable on human time scales. 100 years from now Miami, Florida will most likely be abandoned because of it.
They fluctuate quiet rapidly actually and life is pretty quick to adapt to it according to most studies...and no, CO2 has nothing to do with it
The wildly squiggly graphs are individual model runs which have as much variability as weather. Only when you take a bunch of model runs and average them together do you get the nice smooth lines you usually see. I think Spenser used those just to increase the confusion of unsophisticated viewers.
You might as well give up on mi. I don't think he has the scientific chops to understand any of it anyway. I've taken to mocking him in our interactions.
Sheesh! It's like I have to lead you like a toddler. When I said 9.3 I meant the whole thing. If you had any interest in actually finding out you would have found section 9.3.3 which has graphs that the ones in the IOP paper I linked to are derived from. But in the IOP paper they only used the projections up to 2015 whereas the IPCC report goes out to 2100 so it's a little difficult to compare them. Even if I lead you directly to the original source data
for the IPCC at the CMIP project the numbers would just overwhelm you since I doubt you have the scientific chops to understand them. It's difficult enough for me too but with enough work I could get there though it would probably take me several weeks.
(Grumble, grumble. Either this guy's too lazy to to do his own search or he's too stupid to use the internet.)
The IPCC reports are large complex reports and maybe you're having trouble drilling down to the pertinent sections. I'll help you find them but the IPCC reports are not amenable to simple quoting and sound bites so you'll have to read them to understand what the projections are.
Temperature predictions:
IPCC AR3 WG1 Chapter 9: Projections of Future Climate Change I direct your attention to Sub-Chapter 9.3.
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10: Global Climate Predictions Particularly Sub-Chapter 10.5.
Sea level predictions:
IPCC AR3 WG1 Chapter 11: Changes in Sea Level Particularly Sub-Chapter 11.5.
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10: Global Climate Predictions Particularly Sub-Chapter 10.6.
He could be wrong. If we act and he was wrong we've spent some money. If we don't act and he was right we could be screwed.
He did say "Over 90%".
Those several times should've been enough for you to understand the point: predictions lauded after coming true aren't acceptable. That — despite several months of being challenged, you remain unable to come up with a prediction publicized before its "success", tells everyone, that no such predictions exist.
WTF are you talking about? The projections in that paper were made in the IPCC AR3 (2001) and IPCC AR4 (2007) which were published well before the paper was written. You can read those reports to verify that.
Well, the obvious conflict of interest would be one reason — if climate is not a problem, there go their grants and the very employment. But even besides such dark suspicions, their seeming inability to make a falsifiable statement, that is not eventually falsified, is a reason for scepticism in itself.
If there were no global warming we would still be studying climate and scientists would still be getting grants to do so. Maybe the attention to the subject has increased the money going into it but by no means would there be no grants for study of climate if AGW wasn't happening.
The truth remains — there have not been many climate-related predictions published, that came true in due time. In fact, I can't find even a single one such prediction, but there really ought to be many by now. We see new ones made in the press quite often...
Several times I've pointed out to you a scientific paper that compares temperature and sea level rise projections to observations up to 2011. Link You reject it since it is not in your required format. That's arguing like a lawyer not a scientist. You should care more about the information that is presented than how it's formatted.
In the realm of more general predictions scientists have said that increased CO2 would cause temperatures to rise. Temperatures on the Earth have risen and continue to rise. They said that the warming would cause land and sea based ice to melt. Land and sea based ice has melted. They said the combination of melting land based ice and warming oceans would cause sea level to rise. Sea level is rising (over 3 inches since 1993) and continues to rise. They said that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would cause ocean acidification. The oceans continue to acidify.
You can argue about it all you like but the real world and physics just doesn't care. It will do what it will do regardless of your (or my) feelings. I just don't see any good reasons to disbelieve the climate scientists.
I have respect for Freeman Dyson and would not call him a climate science denier but a "lukewarmer". He admits that increased CO2 will have effects but doesn't think they will be so bad that it won't be a major disruption to our civilization. I think he is wrong in that judgement and wish he'd take the time for some deep talk with actual climatologists but he may be to set in his ways for that to have an effect.
Presumably if I had got thyroid cancer at a young age I would know it by now at the age of 63. I don't think I've ever been screened for thyroid cancer but of course during my yearly check-ups the doctor does palpate my thyroids to see if they're swollen and does check my level of thyroid hormones in the blood screenings. I don't know how long you can have thyroid cancer and not have it diagnosed but I doubt it's more than a few years.
When you're idling along like that it's more difficult for the catalytic converter to get hot enough to burn those hydrocarbons so more of them go out the tailpipe.
Using hyperbolic expressions like "mindless government drone" doesn't lead me to believe you are a very thoughtful person. I doubt we'd miss you.