I find it pretty damn funny that alarmists have begun calling global warming climate change like skeptics have always called it. And now they're saying we're heading for amother Little Ice age like we 'realists' have always speculated. And now they're saying CO2 is the weakest gas like we've always said....
I find it pretty damn funny that "skeptics" think "alarmists" have just recently switched to climate change from global warming when the term climate change has been used at least since the 1950's. See: "Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154."
No scientist has said we're heading for another Little Ice Age, just that the Sun may enter a period like the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum and low solar output in general was not the cause of the Little Ice Age, just an exacerbating factor.
If we want life on Mars then we have to raise the co2 levels among other things.....
The CO2 level in the Martian atmosphere is already over 900,000 ppm. The problem is that the atmosphere is just so thin in the first place.
I agree that coal has been used for thousands of years. All I said was that the rate of coal use was low enough before the early 1800's that natural processes were able to mostly absorb the CO2 it produced. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are well known going back at least 400,000 years.
Before the early to mid 1800's the whole world didn't burn enough coal (and other fossil fuels) to make a significant difference to CO2 levels and it's only since the 1950's that CO2 levels really started to take off.
In the end we will all (worldwide) end up paying for the costs of anthropogenic climate change, both monetary and in the lost value of the ecosystems we depend on.
It's interesting that Germany is welcoming Syrian refugees in part because of an aging population. The Syrians are a source of mostly young relatively well educated people who will slide right in to the workforce.
If you consider digging up fossil fuels a part of industrial output then Wyoming, Montana etc. have a fairly high industrial output, especially on a per capita basis.
If you look at the fine article you'll find a graph that shows total debit/credit in billions of tonnes of CO2 for the most important nations (in terms of CO2). That is straight scientific research as it deals with physical quantities that can be calculated from fossil fuel usage and other factors for each country. Putting a monetary value on that may be somewhat arbitrary but the price of emitting CO2 is certainly not zero.
CO2 is fungible. If I burn one tree's worth of coal, I've changed the amount in the active carbon cycle by exactly the same amount as if I burned the tree instead. The only way this isn't true is if the tree was going to burn anyway.
It's true that CO2 is CO2 regardless of the source of the carbon.
But the active carbon cycle consists primarily of the carbon that cycles through the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere on relatively short (geologically speaking) time scales. Since the tree you're burning is part of the biosphere it is already part of the active carbon cycle burning it doesn't change the total carbon in the active cycle, just the location. It then becomes available for other trees to take it up continuing the cycle.
Fossil fuels on the other hand consist of carbon that has not been a part of the active carbon cycle for millions of years (in most cases hundreds of millions of years). Burning fossil fuels releases that carbon increasing the total in the active carbon cycle. Since the balance between the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere in the active carbon cycle remains about the same you get an increase in atmospheric CO2, and increase in hydrosphere CO2 (thus ocean acidification) and an increase in the biosphere with more plant growth. Of those three "spheres" the biosphere is probably the most limited since plant growth depends on other things besides the availability of carbon but the balance between the atmosphere and hydrosphere just depends on Henry's Law as modified by Van 't Hoff's equation.
The difference between burning wood, straw or dung is that the CO2 released comes from CO2 that was relatively recently absorbed from the atmosphere by plants so it doesn't change the total amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle. Burning coal or gas on the other hand releases carbon that has been sequestered from the active carbon cycle for millions of years and so increases the amount in the active carbon cycle.
I read through all 107 of the listed prediction failures and as I said in my other reply to you most of them are way too recent to call them failures yet. The one you quote could be called a legitimate failure. I tried to Google the quote to find the original source for information but it's so old there was nothing online. I would like to find out who the scientists are that said that and the context in which they said it.
I went and read that list of 107 "failed predictions". Most of them are from the 2000s so it's way to early to call them failed. Let's see what conditions look like in the 2030's to 2050's to before we judge them. A number of them are from non-scientists who I will generously say misinterpreted what scientists have said. Even the ones that you could say failed contain words like "may" so I interpret them more as a worst case scenario.
At 63 years old I well remember the stories that came out about the potential for an ice age in the 1970s. I read them with interest at the time. But I'm also aware that a relatively recent review of the published literature from 1965 to 1979 found that papers about warming from CO2 outnumbered the papers about cooling by around 7 to 1. The "Global Freezing predictions" were never part of the mainstream of climate science.
How many of those WUWT "failed predictions" have you dug into to check the validity of the claims? Or do you just uncritically accept them as most over there do?
The Vostok core is an ice core, not a core of the tundra or sea floor as the GP asked about.
As far as CO2 and temperature it's simplistic to believe that CO2 always lags temperature. Increased CO2 may be a feedback to warming temperatures coming out of a glaciation but it's impossible to account for the temperatures that are reached without accounting for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are pretty straightforward.
Do you have any evidence that James Hansen was chased out of NASA. I believe he retired on his own terms. After all he is 74 years old (72 when he retired I think). As director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies he had a lot of administrative duties that he was probably getting tired of.
The headline on the story is rather hyperbolic. There certainly will be massive changes in the Arctic in the future as the sea ice, land ice and permafrost continue to melt and sea level continues to rise. Ecosystems will collapse and it will take tens of thousands of years to replace them. It will certainly be costly as human activities are disrupted But the Arctic will still be there just very different than it is now.
We are likely heading into a cooling period in the earths climate as the tendentious computer models drift farther and farther from the real earth's temperature. The surface temperature records are being heavily adjusted to create the appearance of more warming (cooling pas records, warming recent ones with fake adjustments and homogenization tricks).
Actually adjustments to the surface temperature records do the opposite of what you say. In general before about 1960 the adjusted data is warmer than the raw data.
Most so-called deniers only deny that there is a run-away effect, that all feedbacks are positive, that you can retroactively alter the temperature records to compensate for time of day and siting issues, that you can splice one proxy temperature record with another and put it on the cover of an official IPCC document and that you can continue to cite models and studies based on those models when CO2 is following the worst case scenario and the actual temperature is below the best case scenario.
Most scientists would not say there is a run-away effect (at least not in the way you mean it) or that all of the feedbacks are positive. The temperature records are what they are. You can't go back and redo them in a more ideal manner. If you have actual scientific objections to the compensations they make for less than ideal data publish your paper.
As far as temperatures "below the best case scenario" the 10 hottest years in the record have all been since 1998 and 2015 is easily going to be a new hottest on record.
Corporations are a fact of life in our current economic system. Some of them do things you like, some do things you don't like. Most are a mixed bag as far as I'm concerned.
In my judgement we all benefit from the green energy loans. The fact that corporations are involved has nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it pretty damn funny that alarmists have begun calling global warming climate change like skeptics have always called it. And now they're saying we're heading for amother Little Ice age like we 'realists' have always speculated. And now they're saying CO2 is the weakest gas like we've always said....
I find it pretty damn funny that "skeptics" think "alarmists" have just recently switched to climate change from global warming when the term climate change has been used at least since the 1950's. See: "Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154."
No scientist has said we're heading for another Little Ice Age, just that the Sun may enter a period like the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum and low solar output in general was not the cause of the Little Ice Age, just an exacerbating factor.
If we want life on Mars then we have to raise the co2 levels among other things.....
The CO2 level in the Martian atmosphere is already over 900,000 ppm. The problem is that the atmosphere is just so thin in the first place.
I agree that coal has been used for thousands of years. All I said was that the rate of coal use was low enough before the early 1800's that natural processes were able to mostly absorb the CO2 it produced. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are well known going back at least 400,000 years.
Before the early to mid 1800's the whole world didn't burn enough coal (and other fossil fuels) to make a significant difference to CO2 levels and it's only since the 1950's that CO2 levels really started to take off.
In the end we will all (worldwide) end up paying for the costs of anthropogenic climate change, both monetary and in the lost value of the ecosystems we depend on.
That's true because no pure "ism" can survive encounter with the real world. Humanity is way to heterogeneous for that to happen.
It's interesting that Germany is welcoming Syrian refugees in part because of an aging population. The Syrians are a source of mostly young relatively well educated people who will slide right in to the workforce.
Regardless of where the money comes from and goes to there is a cost to global warming. We all end up paying for it in one way or the other.
If you consider digging up fossil fuels a part of industrial output then Wyoming, Montana etc. have a fairly high industrial output, especially on a per capita basis.
If you look at the fine article you'll find a graph that shows total debit/credit in billions of tonnes of CO2 for the most important nations (in terms of CO2). That is straight scientific research as it deals with physical quantities that can be calculated from fossil fuel usage and other factors for each country. Putting a monetary value on that may be somewhat arbitrary but the price of emitting CO2 is certainly not zero.
CO2 is fungible. If I burn one tree's worth of coal, I've changed the amount in the active carbon cycle by exactly the same amount as if I burned the tree instead. The only way this isn't true is if the tree was going to burn anyway.
It's true that CO2 is CO2 regardless of the source of the carbon.
But the active carbon cycle consists primarily of the carbon that cycles through the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere on relatively short (geologically speaking) time scales. Since the tree you're burning is part of the biosphere it is already part of the active carbon cycle burning it doesn't change the total carbon in the active cycle, just the location. It then becomes available for other trees to take it up continuing the cycle.
Fossil fuels on the other hand consist of carbon that has not been a part of the active carbon cycle for millions of years (in most cases hundreds of millions of years). Burning fossil fuels releases that carbon increasing the total in the active carbon cycle. Since the balance between the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere in the active carbon cycle remains about the same you get an increase in atmospheric CO2, and increase in hydrosphere CO2 (thus ocean acidification) and an increase in the biosphere with more plant growth. Of those three "spheres" the biosphere is probably the most limited since plant growth depends on other things besides the availability of carbon but the balance between the atmosphere and hydrosphere just depends on Henry's Law as modified by Van 't Hoff's equation.
The difference between burning wood, straw or dung is that the CO2 released comes from CO2 that was relatively recently absorbed from the atmosphere by plants so it doesn't change the total amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle. Burning coal or gas on the other hand releases carbon that has been sequestered from the active carbon cycle for millions of years and so increases the amount in the active carbon cycle.
Since the predictions from the 2000s are mostly talking about conditions in the 2030 to 2050 time range it's way too premature to call them failed.
"Over there" refers to the WUWT website.
I read through all 107 of the listed prediction failures and as I said in my other reply to you most of them are way too recent to call them failures yet. The one you quote could be called a legitimate failure. I tried to Google the quote to find the original source for information but it's so old there was nothing online. I would like to find out who the scientists are that said that and the context in which they said it.
I went and read that list of 107 "failed predictions". Most of them are from the 2000s so it's way to early to call them failed. Let's see what conditions look like in the 2030's to 2050's to before we judge them. A number of them are from non-scientists who I will generously say misinterpreted what scientists have said. Even the ones that you could say failed contain words like "may" so I interpret them more as a worst case scenario.
At 63 years old I well remember the stories that came out about the potential for an ice age in the 1970s. I read them with interest at the time. But I'm also aware that a relatively recent review of the published literature from 1965 to 1979 found that papers about warming from CO2 outnumbered the papers about cooling by around 7 to 1. The "Global Freezing predictions" were never part of the mainstream of climate science.
How many of those WUWT "failed predictions" have you dug into to check the validity of the claims? Or do you just uncritically accept them as most over there do?
Then perhaps you could cite some references where Al Gore actually said that.
The Vostok core is an ice core, not a core of the tundra or sea floor as the GP asked about.
As far as CO2 and temperature it's simplistic to believe that CO2 always lags temperature. Increased CO2 may be a feedback to warming temperatures coming out of a glaciation but it's impossible to account for the temperatures that are reached without accounting for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are pretty straightforward.
The better question is how long does it take for the changes to settle down enough to make it interesting to buy land there?
I got a laugh out of that. Are they some kind of dancers? I think the word you're looking for is "charlatans".
I don't remember scientists making either of those predictions. Perhaps you could back your assertion up with references to peer reviewed papers.
Do you have any evidence that James Hansen was chased out of NASA. I believe he retired on his own terms. After all he is 74 years old (72 when he retired I think). As director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies he had a lot of administrative duties that he was probably getting tired of.
The headline on the story is rather hyperbolic. There certainly will be massive changes in the Arctic in the future as the sea ice, land ice and permafrost continue to melt and sea level continues to rise. Ecosystems will collapse and it will take tens of thousands of years to replace them. It will certainly be costly as human activities are disrupted But the Arctic will still be there just very different than it is now.
We are likely heading into a cooling period in the earths climate as the tendentious computer models drift farther and farther from the real earth's temperature. The surface temperature records are being heavily adjusted to create the appearance of more warming (cooling pas records, warming recent ones with fake adjustments and homogenization tricks).
Actually adjustments to the surface temperature records do the opposite of what you say. In general before about 1960 the adjusted data is warmer than the raw data.
Graph
Most so-called deniers only deny that there is a run-away effect, that all feedbacks are positive, that you can retroactively alter the temperature records to compensate for time of day and siting issues, that you can splice one proxy temperature record with another and put it on the cover of an official IPCC document and that you can continue to cite models and studies based on those models when CO2 is following the worst case scenario and the actual temperature is below the best case scenario.
Most scientists would not say there is a run-away effect (at least not in the way you mean it) or that all of the feedbacks are positive. The temperature records are what they are. You can't go back and redo them in a more ideal manner. If you have actual scientific objections to the compensations they make for less than ideal data publish your paper.
As far as temperatures "below the best case scenario" the 10 hottest years in the record have all been since 1998 and 2015 is easily going to be a new hottest on record.
Corporations are a fact of life in our current economic system. Some of them do things you like, some do things you don't like. Most are a mixed bag as far as I'm concerned.
In my judgement we all benefit from the green energy loans. The fact that corporations are involved has nothing to do with it.