The motivations of people like me have nothing to do with greed but rather a realization that we're all in this together and how well I do as an individual is tied to how well others in the society I live in do. I have nothing against people getting wealthy but they should support the society we have that allowed them to become wealthy. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."
To understand that both claims are true you have to understand the difference between the Antarctic ice sheet and Antarctic sea ice. Without understanding that you have nothing to make a judgement on.
Miami Beach Florida is already having rising seas flooding in some streets.
I'm afraid Miami Beach and most of Southern Florida is history no matter what we do. It will take several centuries for the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica to reach a new equilibrium with the increased temperatures. I think there is at least 20 feet of sea level rise already built in to the picture. Miami may be able to hold on for another 80 years or so but that's about it at best but it wouldn't surprise me if it's only 40 years.
I think you meant to write "East Antarctica". Researchers aren't ignoring the rest of Antarctica but the majority of the big research stations are toward the West Antarctica area and it's closer to South America and New Zealand/Australia so the access is a bit easier. Results for the GRACE satellites show that the ice loss is far greater in West Antarctica than in the East so that's where the action is.
We have climate change as a hot topic. The climate changes, fact. I don't know of any climate change so called "deniers" that deny the fact the climate changes.
The more accurate term would be climate science deniers. That's what I mean when I use the term "denier".
I disagree. Climate science deniers are not the least bit skeptical of anything that conforms to their desired result. A true skeptic is more skeptical of things that appear to confirm their biases than of things that don't.
How big do you think West Antarctica is? They found one relatively small area of volcanic activity under one lobe of one glacier in West Antarctica. The volcanic activity could have been going on for hundreds or thousands of years for all we know. To trump it up as the cause of all West Antarctic ice loss is not warranted by the evidence.
Yes, I've read that paper before. It really doesn't show that models are wrong. In it they talk about the effect of increasing stratospheric aerosols from a number of smaller scale volcanic eruptions that the CMIP5 models don't take into account (because it couldn't be predicted ahead of time). Climate models are never going to be able to predict the different natural variabilities ahead of time so it's unfair to judge them on that basis. When climate models are run with the observed natural variability forced on them they do quite well.
Of course humans and other living things exhale CO2. But that CO2 comes from carbon in the things we eat that got the carbon from CO2 that was already in the atmosphere. So the CO2 we exhale has zero effect on the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's that carbon that's been buried for millions of years that we are digging up and burning that is causing the increase in CO2. If you don't understand the distinction between the two as I said you really need to get some education.
As for CO2 being pollution or not that's arguing semantics. Regardless changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere does have effects on the climate.
Yes they do and so far real world temperatures remain within the uncertainty ranges on climate model projections. To me that says they're doing alright.
The difference between weather models and climate models is that weather models are solving an initial values problem and climate models are solving a boundary values problem, two quite different things. With weather models you start with the current conditions and try to model how they will evolve over time. They're usually not very good more than 10 days out. With climate models you take the inputs and outputs and processes of the climate system and try to model the boundaries within which climate will vary.
Boy, if you think 5 or 10% transmission loss over wired delivery systems is bad how much would be lost just broadcasting it as Tesla proposed. I'd be surprised if even 10% of it wasn't lost.
Higher energy costs will impact the poor and those on fixed incomes the most.
At the rate the cost of solar PV and wind power are dropping they will soon be the lowest cost source of electrical energy. They already are in some areas. If the promise of battery storage can be realized cost effectively that's the end of fossil fuel and nuclear power.
Get 4 academics/researchers in a room and each will have numerous, and maybe half a dozen "math models" each. Then they pick one they think might be "right." What is not discussed is that models are inherently modeling chaotic systems.
Chaotic systems can flip their path (trajectory or outcome if you will) based on things that occur in the 9th, 12th or 20th decimal point. This is well known to mathematicians.
So, are we to alter society and effectively drain its resources to try to accomplish something that is estimated but not proven to be correct? And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Climate is not chaotic, at least not in the way you are thinking. The temperature on the Earth is more of an energy balance problem.
... not because you deeply understand the climate change models.
Just that fact that you called them "climate change models" rather than simply "climate models" show you don't understand the first thing about them.
Oh, and regarding acid rain, it is a real thing and we did something about the anthropogenic causes of it. It can also be caused by natural events likd volcanic eruptions but they are rare enough that they aren't a big problem.
And then hundreds of billions of taxpayer money would no longer be spent on the climate change industry.
Do you really believe there is no reason to study the Earth's climate if anthropogenic global warming is not true? Seems to me studying the climate is worthwhile regardless of that.
I think the question you need to ask yourself is are your criteria for judging climate models right or wrong valid given the limitations inherent in them. There are a lot of natural variability factors that are impossible for climate models to get the timing right on except by chance. But in the long run they average out so long term (30 years or more) I expect climate models to be relatively accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
The motivations of people like me have nothing to do with greed but rather a realization that we're all in this together and how well I do as an individual is tied to how well others in the society I live in do. I have nothing against people getting wealthy but they should support the society we have that allowed them to become wealthy. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."
The Antarctic sea ice is not increasing because it's getting colder. Observations show that it is not.
If all of the ice on Antarctica melted the sea level rise would be over 150 feet. Sea level has increased at a rate over 3 mm/year since the 1990s.
To understand that both claims are true you have to understand the difference between the Antarctic ice sheet and Antarctic sea ice. Without understanding that you have nothing to make a judgement on.
After that, figuring out what to do to fix any problem while still living in style is the really hard problem.
I'm afraid there is no fixing the collapse of the much of the West Antarctic ice sheet. It's probably already reached the point of inevitability.
Miami Beach Florida is already having rising seas flooding in some streets.
I'm afraid Miami Beach and most of Southern Florida is history no matter what we do. It will take several centuries for the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica to reach a new equilibrium with the increased temperatures. I think there is at least 20 feet of sea level rise already built in to the picture. Miami may be able to hold on for another 80 years or so but that's about it at best but it wouldn't surprise me if it's only 40 years.
I think you meant to write "East Antarctica". Researchers aren't ignoring the rest of Antarctica but the majority of the big research stations are toward the West Antarctica area and it's closer to South America and New Zealand/Australia so the access is a bit easier. Results for the GRACE satellites show that the ice loss is far greater in West Antarctica than in the East so that's where the action is.
We have climate change as a hot topic. The climate changes, fact. I don't know of any climate change so called "deniers" that deny the fact the climate changes.
The more accurate term would be climate science deniers. That's what I mean when I use the term "denier".
At least the deniers are skeptical.
I disagree. Climate science deniers are not the least bit skeptical of anything that conforms to their desired result. A true skeptic is more skeptical of things that appear to confirm their biases than of things that don't.
How big do you think West Antarctica is? They found one relatively small area of volcanic activity under one lobe of one glacier in West Antarctica. The volcanic activity could have been going on for hundreds or thousands of years for all we know. To trump it up as the cause of all West Antarctic ice loss is not warranted by the evidence.
The increase in stratospheric aerosols is an observed fact.
Yes, I've read that paper before. It really doesn't show that models are wrong. In it they talk about the effect of increasing stratospheric aerosols from a number of smaller scale volcanic eruptions that the CMIP5 models don't take into account (because it couldn't be predicted ahead of time). Climate models are never going to be able to predict the different natural variabilities ahead of time so it's unfair to judge them on that basis. When climate models are run with the observed natural variability forced on them they do quite well.
Of course humans and other living things exhale CO2. But that CO2 comes from carbon in the things we eat that got the carbon from CO2 that was already in the atmosphere. So the CO2 we exhale has zero effect on the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's that carbon that's been buried for millions of years that we are digging up and burning that is causing the increase in CO2. If you don't understand the distinction between the two as I said you really need to get some education.
As for CO2 being pollution or not that's arguing semantics. Regardless changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere does have effects on the climate.
Yes they do and so far real world temperatures remain within the uncertainty ranges on climate model projections. To me that says they're doing alright.
The difference between weather models and climate models is that weather models are solving an initial values problem and climate models are solving a boundary values problem, two quite different things. With weather models you start with the current conditions and try to model how they will evolve over time. They're usually not very good more than 10 days out. With climate models you take the inputs and outputs and processes of the climate system and try to model the boundaries within which climate will vary.
Boy, if you think 5 or 10% transmission loss over wired delivery systems is bad how much would be lost just broadcasting it as Tesla proposed. I'd be surprised if even 10% of it wasn't lost.
They can't even hindcast properly and they are way off from observed climate.
[citation needed]
(And no WUWT that you tried to feed me on another thread is not a proper citation.)
Higher energy costs will impact the poor and those on fixed incomes the most.
At the rate the cost of solar PV and wind power are dropping they will soon be the lowest cost source of electrical energy. They already are in some areas. If the promise of battery storage can be realized cost effectively that's the end of fossil fuel and nuclear power.
...even if it was all wrong. What's the side-effect of reducing pollute? We're all less likely to die of cancer?
Poverty, growing inequality, societal fracture, possibly civil war.
That sounds like what's likely to happen as the effects of anthropogenic global warming continue to worsen.
There are several possible definitions of "pollution" but one of them is too much of something where you don't want it.
Also if you seriously believe the CO2 that is exhaled by living beings is part of the problem you really need to get some education.
Get 4 academics/researchers in a room and each will have numerous, and maybe half a dozen "math models" each. Then they pick one they think might be "right." What is not discussed is that models are inherently modeling chaotic systems.
Chaotic systems can flip their path (trajectory or outcome if you will) based on things that occur in the 9th, 12th or 20th decimal point. This is well known to mathematicians.
So, are we to alter society and effectively drain its resources to try to accomplish something that is estimated but not proven to be correct? And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Climate is not chaotic, at least not in the way you are thinking. The temperature on the Earth is more of an energy balance problem.
Interestingly, this article was in the news just a few days ago: Report: Harvard Faculty Supports Democrats a Whopping 96% of the Time.
That would be because Republicans (especially at the national level) are increasingly rejecting science that doesn't fit in with their world view.
Just that fact that you called them "climate change models" rather than simply "climate models" show you don't understand the first thing about them.
Oh, and regarding acid rain, it is a real thing and we did something about the anthropogenic causes of it. It can also be caused by natural events likd volcanic eruptions but they are rare enough that they aren't a big problem.
And then hundreds of billions of taxpayer money would no longer be spent on the climate change industry.
Do you really believe there is no reason to study the Earth's climate if anthropogenic global warming is not true? Seems to me studying the climate is worthwhile regardless of that.
I think the question you need to ask yourself is are your criteria for judging climate models right or wrong valid given the limitations inherent in them. There are a lot of natural variability factors that are impossible for climate models to get the timing right on except by chance. But in the long run they average out so long term (30 years or more) I expect climate models to be relatively accurate.