Science always seeks improvement and is never static unless it's dead. If you think the changes that have been made are scientifically unjustified then lets see your scientifically valid evidence challenging the updates.
Regarding the State of the Climate report this post is about, it was finished before the GISS update so there is no connection between the two.
It may only be a 0.02% change in the overall atmosphere (I didn't check your math) but it's also an over 40% increase in one of the principal greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
It's more like 255 TW but just because it's a big number doesn't mean much. The total energy from an average of 250 W/m^2 is 127,500 TW, 3 orders of magnitude larger.
What does the energy consumption of humans have to do with anything? It has practically nothing to do with global warming other than being responsible for supplying most of the CO2 that is causing most of the warming.
Time to trot out the old "correlation isn't causation" meme. It could be a coincidence the the Dalton Minimum was at the same time or the DM could be a partial explanation. Remember that Mt. Tambora and the "Year without a summer" occurred during the DM.
True and Zharkova's double dynamo hypothesis doesn't have anything to say on climate change or a mini ice age, just that there may be lowered solar activity for a while. How such low solar activity affects climate has been examined before and what they found was it would only slow global warming down a bit but not stop it. RealClimate had a post on it in 2011.
I kind of misspoke when I wrote that. The 0.2% is the difference between maximum solar forcing and minimum solar forcing in a Maunder Minimum scenario given the Sun's variability so the potential change is more like half of that.
What climate scientists are saying is not that the Sun has no effect but that there is not enough variability in the Sun to account for the changes we've seen. The incoming energy from the Sun's radiation is of course critical to the Earth's climate. The variability of the Sun from a Maunder Minimum condition to the maximum output we've see is on the order of 0.2% which is less than the forcing of the added CO2 in the atmosphere.
And based on what astronomy knows about G-type main sequence stars there's no reason to expect a drastic increase in the variability of the Sun.
After thinking about it for a few days I find Dr. Zharkova's double dynamo hypothesis interesting. Time and more study will tell if it holds up or not.
What I find amusing is all the breathless hype over a mini ice age. If if Dr. Zharkova's study is right and we do enter a Maunder Minimum-like period on the Sun we're talking about a reduction in insolation of at most about 0.2%, much less than the added forcing from the increase in CO2. At best it holds off some warming for a few years and that all goes away once the Sun returns to a more normal pattern.
The quake they're talking about will be to the north of California for the most part and won't have as much effect south of Cape Mendocino about 280 miles north of San Fransisco.
In general the tax increase for a bond measure like that lasts a limited number of years until the bond is paid off so no one is going to spend 58 years paying that off. Also the average home price in the area is probably a bit less than that unless it's within a half mile of the ocean.
As a whitewater rafter who lives in Salem, Oregon I feel fairly well prepared. I have a couple of big water jugs that I keep full. I have a river toilet with enough supplies to last me for several weeks. I have propane stoves and lanterns, water purification equipment and other camping equipment to tide me by. My home was built in 1994 and so has some earthquake resilience built in and is high enough in elevation to avoid flooding if dams break. I probably should stock up some more non-perishable food but I can probably raid the grocery store 2 blocks from my house if it happens.
Check out the PETT wag bag toilet systems. The sewage is in zip lock bags that you can just pile up until you can dispose of them.
Why not take out of Oklahoma's or Texas's playbook and do some fracking near the fault line? It will likely cause earthquakes but hopefully they would be minor, and would relieve the pressure a little bit at a time, instead of all at once.
Given the amount of pressure that's built up in the subduction zone since the last big quake 315 years ago chances are all you'd do is set the next big one off. The time to do what you're talking about is right after the big quake to prevent the stresses from building up again. But nobody's ever going to pay for it anyway so it's a moot point.
I don't understand your attitude. Was the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake a hoax? How about the 2011 earthquake off Japan? It is well known that the last major earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM, 300 years ago. To expect it won't happen again is foolishness.
Like no one noticed or cared when the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami hit or the 2001 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima nuclear plant hit. When the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits it will result in thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damage that will take years to recover from.
And don't worry about anthropogenic global warming, you'll be hearing about it for the rest of your life because it's not going away.
Well, the last major quake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM, only about 300 years ago so apparently plenty stressed out.
Bin Laden was never a serious threat to the US either and he got exactly the reaction he wanted out of us, wasting our money and energy on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Bin Laden. That said I still mourn for and with all of the people affected by 9/11 but for the US as a whole it was more like being stung by a big wasp than being attacked by a swarm of killer bees.
Yeah, 5,000 chemical weapons from before the 1991 Gulf War and 200 tonnes of yellowcake which is no more radioactive than natural uranium ore. I'm quaking in my boots.
Is it convenient? If I take the transit and it only extends my commute from say 10 minutes to 20 minutes, but I don't have to worry about paying for parking, finding parking, etc. sure I'd take it. But I probably already would be. If it took 1.5 hours and two transfers where I have to wait 20 minutes each at a terminal, vs 30 minutes driving, no, I would not take transit.
This exactly. I could take the bus to work but it would take me about 1.5 hours to get there with a 25 minute wait at the downtown transfer station for the outgoing bus. I can drive there in under 15 minutes even when the traffic's heavy. If the bus ride was under about 40 minutes I'd be more interested.
And investment in renewables and clean-nuclear is almost non-existent. Color me shocked!
I'll be more interested in nuclear power when it shows it can compete economically with other forms of energy production including all life-cycle costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Science always seeks improvement and is never static unless it's dead. If you think the changes that have been made are scientifically unjustified then lets see your scientifically valid evidence challenging the updates.
Regarding the State of the Climate report this post is about, it was finished before the GISS update so there is no connection between the two.
It may only be a 0.02% change in the overall atmosphere (I didn't check your math) but it's also an over 40% increase in one of the principal greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
It's more like 255 TW but just because it's a big number doesn't mean much. The total energy from an average of 250 W/m^2 is 127,500 TW, 3 orders of magnitude larger.
What does the energy consumption of humans have to do with anything? It has practically nothing to do with global warming other than being responsible for supplying most of the CO2 that is causing most of the warming.
Time to trot out the old "correlation isn't causation" meme. It could be a coincidence the the Dalton Minimum was at the same time or the DM could be a partial explanation. Remember that Mt. Tambora and the "Year without a summer" occurred during the DM.
True and Zharkova's double dynamo hypothesis doesn't have anything to say on climate change or a mini ice age, just that there may be lowered solar activity for a while. How such low solar activity affects climate has been examined before and what they found was it would only slow global warming down a bit but not stop it. RealClimate had a post on it in 2011.
I kind of misspoke when I wrote that. The 0.2% is the difference between maximum solar forcing and minimum solar forcing in a Maunder Minimum scenario given the Sun's variability so the potential change is more like half of that.
I found several sources that seem to disagree with you:
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ip...
https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...
Bad assumption.
What climate scientists are saying is not that the Sun has no effect but that there is not enough variability in the Sun to account for the changes we've seen. The incoming energy from the Sun's radiation is of course critical to the Earth's climate. The variability of the Sun from a Maunder Minimum condition to the maximum output we've see is on the order of 0.2% which is less than the forcing of the added CO2 in the atmosphere.
And based on what astronomy knows about G-type main sequence stars there's no reason to expect a drastic increase in the variability of the Sun.
I was using it in relation to the AC I replied to any anyone else who thinks a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake is a hoax.
After thinking about it for a few days I find Dr. Zharkova's double dynamo hypothesis interesting. Time and more study will tell if it holds up or not.
What I find amusing is all the breathless hype over a mini ice age. If if Dr. Zharkova's study is right and we do enter a Maunder Minimum-like period on the Sun we're talking about a reduction in insolation of at most about 0.2%, much less than the added forcing from the increase in CO2. At best it holds off some warming for a few years and that all goes away once the Sun returns to a more normal pattern.
When the quake lets go all that land will drop several feet giving back all of the rise that's built up since the last quake on January 26, 1700.
The quake they're talking about will be to the north of California for the most part and won't have as much effect south of Cape Mendocino about 280 miles north of San Fransisco.
In general the tax increase for a bond measure like that lasts a limited number of years until the bond is paid off so no one is going to spend 58 years paying that off. Also the average home price in the area is probably a bit less than that unless it's within a half mile of the ocean.
As a whitewater rafter who lives in Salem, Oregon I feel fairly well prepared. I have a couple of big water jugs that I keep full. I have a river toilet with enough supplies to last me for several weeks. I have propane stoves and lanterns, water purification equipment and other camping equipment to tide me by. My home was built in 1994 and so has some earthquake resilience built in and is high enough in elevation to avoid flooding if dams break. I probably should stock up some more non-perishable food but I can probably raid the grocery store 2 blocks from my house if it happens.
Check out the PETT wag bag toilet systems. The sewage is in zip lock bags that you can just pile up until you can dispose of them.
Why not take out of Oklahoma's or Texas's playbook and do some fracking near the fault line? It will likely cause earthquakes but hopefully they would be minor, and would relieve the pressure a little bit at a time, instead of all at once.
Given the amount of pressure that's built up in the subduction zone since the last big quake 315 years ago chances are all you'd do is set the next big one off. The time to do what you're talking about is right after the big quake to prevent the stresses from building up again. But nobody's ever going to pay for it anyway so it's a moot point.
I don't understand your attitude. Was the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake a hoax? How about the 2011 earthquake off Japan? It is well known that the last major earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM, 300 years ago. To expect it won't happen again is foolishness.
Like no one noticed or cared when the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami hit or the 2001 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima nuclear plant hit. When the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits it will result in thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damage that will take years to recover from.
And don't worry about anthropogenic global warming, you'll be hearing about it for the rest of your life because it's not going away.
Well, the last major quake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was January 26, 1700 at about 9:00 PM, only about 300 years ago so apparently plenty stressed out.
I have my browsing set at -1 (0 abbreviated, 0 Hidden) because you never know when someone says something insightful despite their score.
Obama just finished what Jimmy Carter Started.
What has transpired in Iran was started back in 1953 when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh.
Bin Laden was never a serious threat to the US either and he got exactly the reaction he wanted out of us, wasting our money and energy on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Bin Laden. That said I still mourn for and with all of the people affected by 9/11 but for the US as a whole it was more like being stung by a big wasp than being attacked by a swarm of killer bees.
Yeah, 5,000 chemical weapons from before the 1991 Gulf War and 200 tonnes of yellowcake which is no more radioactive than natural uranium ore. I'm quaking in my boots.
I'd rather 90 minutes New York to Paris.
Undersea by rail.
Anywhere on the planet is less than 90 minutes away from anywhere else on the planet by a ballistic capsule. Seems to me that's the way to go.
Is it convenient? If I take the transit and it only extends my commute from say 10 minutes to 20 minutes, but I don't have to worry about paying for parking, finding parking, etc. sure I'd take it. But I probably already would be. If it took 1.5 hours and two transfers where I have to wait 20 minutes each at a terminal, vs 30 minutes driving, no, I would not take transit.
This exactly. I could take the bus to work but it would take me about 1.5 hours to get there with a 25 minute wait at the downtown transfer station for the outgoing bus. I can drive there in under 15 minutes even when the traffic's heavy. If the bus ride was under about 40 minutes I'd be more interested.
And investment in renewables and clean-nuclear is almost non-existent. Color me shocked!
I'll be more interested in nuclear power when it shows it can compete economically with other forms of energy production including all life-cycle costs.